Hi,
While running your changed tests on Windows, I think I found new failures.
Being a bot and all I'm not very good at pattern recognition, so I might be
wrong, but could you please double-check?
Full results can be found at
http://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=14599
Your paranoid android
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 6:06 PM, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> Bernhard Loos writes:
>
>> RtlRaiseException_helper2 has one argument in this case and gcc
>> retores the original esp value after the call. The problem is, that
>> gcc doesn't emit DWARF frame adjustment ops for this whole exercise,
>>
Hi Andrew,
doesn't seem to apply here:
$ patch -p1 < 79377.patch
patching file dlls/dsound/dsound_main.c
Hunk #1 FAILED at 319.
1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to file dlls/dsound/dsound_main.c.rej
-- Forwarded message --
From:
Date: Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 2:50 PM
Subje
On 09/27/2011 12:17 PM, Michael Stefaniuc wrote:
On 09/27/2011 03:20 AM, Vitaliy Margolen wrote:
Could we please wait another week (until after the wineconf) before
doing these whole sale changes?
Please leave sound system and related winecfg code as-is.
Why?
Come to think of it this would be
On 09/27/2011 03:20 AM, Vitaliy Margolen wrote:
> On 09/26/2011 09:10 AM, Andrew Eikum wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 04:50:22PM +0200,
>> joerg-cyril.hoe...@t-systems.com wrote:
>>> I'm not satisfied with the removal of the audio tree from winecfg.
>>> Beside allowing to switch or disable drive
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 11:35 AM, wrote:
> This raises the question about when to use [PATCH X/Y] and/or whether
> buildbots should apply all precedingly submitted patches that did not fail.
>
> I tend to use X/Y subject lines when patches depend on each other in the
> sense that one should not a
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 4:34 PM, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> Bernhard Loos writes:
>
>> @@ -60,6 +60,17 @@ static PTOP_LEVEL_EXCEPTION_FILTER top_filter;
>> typedef INT (WINAPI *MessageBoxA_funcptr)(HWND,LPCSTR,LPCSTR,UINT);
>> typedef INT (WINAPI *MessageBoxW_funcptr)(HWND,LPCWSTR,LPCWSTR,UINT
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 4:33 PM, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> Bernhard Loos writes:
>
>> @@ -1181,7 +1181,7 @@ __ASM_STDCALL_FUNC( RtlCaptureContext, 4,
>> __ASM_CFI(".cfi_adjust_cfa_offset 4\n\t")
>> "popl 0xc0(%eax)\n\t" /* context->EFlags */
>>
Bernhard Loos writes:
> RtlRaiseException_helper2 has one argument in this case and gcc
> retores the original esp value after the call. The problem is, that
> gcc doesn't emit DWARF frame adjustment ops for this whole exercise,
> so for the single instruction at 0x7b839cf9, gdb assumes the wrong
Bernhard Loos writes:
> Nothing specific. I noticed this yesterday, while trying to use this
> function for RtlRaiseException, before you pointed out the register
> problem.
>
> Wouldn't it be better to rename this functions as it behaves
> differently then the windows version so apps get an actu
You really should implement the .NET 4 version of this first (MSDN
helpfully points to ICLRRuntimeInfo::GetInterface, which is
CLRRuntimeInfo_GetInterface in our code), then implement the legacy
version based on that, so everything is in one place.
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 6:34 AM, Alistair Leslie-
Dan,
>Fails to apply here. (Requires fuzz, which Alexandre says is verboten.)
>error: dlls/winmm/waveform.c: patch does not apply
This raises the question about when to use [PATCH X/Y] and/or whether
buildbots should apply all precedingly submitted patches that did not fail.
I tend to use X/Y s
Why aren't you using CLRRuntimeInfo_GetInterface for this?
On 27 September 2011 13:49, wrote:
> snippet. It looks like a +relay log, not showing what I want to see.
That's mostly intentional, for COM traces in general at least. The
main purpose of the initial trace in COM calls is to show that a
function gets called at all, since these don't show up in
Hi,
I'm not satisfied with the current winmm+mmdevapi logging. I suspect that COM
logging of other components is similarly bad. Consider the following
snippet. It looks like a +relay log, not showing what I want to see.
0022:trace:winmm:waveOutWrite (0xc000, 0x21f140, 32)
0020:trace:winmm:WOD_
Bernhard Loos writes:
> @@ -60,6 +60,17 @@ static PTOP_LEVEL_EXCEPTION_FILTER top_filter;
> typedef INT (WINAPI *MessageBoxA_funcptr)(HWND,LPCSTR,LPCSTR,UINT);
> typedef INT (WINAPI *MessageBoxW_funcptr)(HWND,LPCWSTR,LPCWSTR,UINT);
>
> +#ifdef __i386__
> +/* without this, it's impossible to g
Bernhard Loos writes:
> @@ -1181,7 +1181,7 @@ __ASM_STDCALL_FUNC( RtlCaptureContext, 4,
> __ASM_CFI(".cfi_adjust_cfa_offset 4\n\t")
> "popl 0xc0(%eax)\n\t" /* context->EFlags */
> __ASM_CFI(".cfi_adjust_cfa_offset -4\n\t")
> -
Alistair Leslie-Hughes writes:
> +#include "initguid.h"
> +/* We need to undefine the MACRO CreateProcess since the ICorDebug interface
> +has a function with this name. (Stops a compile issue).
> + */
> +#undef CreateProcess
> +#include "cordebug.h"
This should go in the header. Check how o
build failed here - did you forget a file?
../../tools/makedep -C. -S../.. -T../.. assembly.c config.c
cordebug.c corruntimehost.c metadata.c metahost.c mscoree_main.c
debugging.c: No such file or directory
make[1]: *** [depend] Error 1
make[1]: Leaving directory
`/home/bob/wineslave.dir/sandbox
Hi,
While running your changed tests on Windows, I think I found new failures.
Being a bot and all I'm not very good at pattern recognition, so I might be
wrong, but could you please double-check?
Full results can be found at
http://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=14582
Your paranoid android
Hi,
While running your changed tests on Windows, I think I found new failures.
Being a bot and all I'm not very good at pattern recognition, so I might be
wrong, but could you please double-check?
Full results can be found at
http://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=14581
Your paranoid android
Hi,
While running your changed tests on Windows, I think I found new failures.
Being a bot and all I'm not very good at pattern recognition, so I might be
wrong, but could you please double-check?
Full results can be found at
http://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=14577
Your paranoid android
Hi,
While running your changed tests on Windows, I think I found new failures.
Being a bot and all I'm not very good at pattern recognition, so I might be
wrong, but could you please double-check?
Full results can be found at
http://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=14578
Your paranoid android
23 matches
Mail list logo
