On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 6:56 AM, Aric Stewart wrote:
> Very interesting. Here at CodeWeavers we have been very interested in
> benchmarking test and had very little luck finding ones that ran.
So out of curiosity,
I just dug up my old copy of WinBench 96 and tried it again.
The GUI has trouble m
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 11:22:04PM +0200, Khaled Hosny wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 01:00:43PM -0800, Juan Lang wrote:
> > Hi Khaled,
> >
> > +void doMirror(WCHAR* ch)
> >
> > This should be static.
> >
> > +else if(*ch == mirrored[k].first)
> > +{
> > +*c
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 01:00:43PM -0800, Juan Lang wrote:
> Hi Khaled,
>
> +void doMirror(WCHAR* ch)
>
> This should be static.
>
> +else if(*ch == mirrored[k].first)
> +{
> +*ch = mirrored[k].mirror;
> +return;
> +}
>
> The else
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 3:12 PM, Dan Kegel wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 12:14 PM, James Hawkins wrote:
>>> http://test.winehq.org/data/8f829034f3fe4da3e7adce2f4685e10ba2e2fe82/xp_fg-winxp-ie7/msi:msi.html
>>> says
>>> dlls/msi/tests/msi.c
>>> msi.c:254: Test failed: wrong error 1618
>>>
>>> 1
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 12:14 PM, James Hawkins wrote:
>> http://test.winehq.org/data/8f829034f3fe4da3e7adce2f4685e10ba2e2fe82/xp_fg-winxp-ie7/msi:msi.html
>> says
>> dlls/msi/tests/msi.c
>> msi.c:254: Test failed: wrong error 1618
>>
>> 1618 is ERROR_INSTALL_ALREADY_RUNNING.
>
> ... There error
Hi Khaled,
+void doMirror(WCHAR* ch)
This should be static.
+else if(*ch == mirrored[k].first)
+{
+*ch = mirrored[k].mirror;
+return;
+}
The else if block is indented one level too many.
Thanks,
--Juan
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 5:05 AM, Dan Kegel wrote:
> Looking at test.winehq.org's XP results, it seems we're doing
> quite well; some of the remaining failures seem to be unusual situations.
> For instance:
>
> msi:msi.c is passing flawlessly on 7 out of 10 computers,
> and on one of the computers,
Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> Aurimas Fišeras writes:
>
>
>> How to know when to fix NULL pointer dereferences if in most such cases
>> code flow can be traced back to a windows API called by "other program"?
>
> If some other program is really calling it with NULL then you can fix
> it. You can'
2009/1/28 Claudio Ciccani :
> Why not both?
It doesn't really work that way, you have to justify adding stuff.
> I mean, you could implement a hardware based vertex blending routine
> using a vertex shader and keep the software vertex blending routine in
> case vertex programs are not supported by
Il giorno mer, 28/01/2009 alle 12.34 +0100, Henri Verbeet ha scritto:
> 2009/1/28 Paul TBBle Hampson :
> > The only position I have on this is that this code exists and if the
> > vertex shader code exists, I am unaware of it. The last comment I
> > thought I read regarding vertex shaders was that
Very interesting. Here at CodeWeavers we have been very interested in
benchmarking test and had very little luck finding ones that ran. We
have a very very old one called officebench (which is no longer even
avalable) that does VB scripting of office which was the only one we
could get working
I just noticed my first patch got accepted, yay :)
commit 8df74a0edb3304dfc26bd524327f9128f63de47f
Author: Ben Klein
Date: Wed Jan 21 21:02:12 2009 +1100
winecfg: Fix a typo in autodetect_drives.
I also noticed someone removed the superfluous () around the
expression in my patch. I include
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 02:46:00PM +0100, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> Juan Lang writes:
>
> > Is this better? This trades a single call to sched_getaffinity per
> > process to one every time the process affinity is queried. This seems
> > safer, since a non-Wine process can also change a proces
> +rc = pDSM_Entry(appid, source, DG_CONTROL, DAT_CAPABILITY, MSG_GET,
> &cap);
Bletch. Forgot to add --attach. I'll resend the series.
Sorry :-/.
Cheers,
Jeremy
Juan Lang writes:
> Is this better? This trades a single call to sched_getaffinity per
> process to one every time the process affinity is queried. This seems
> safer, since a non-Wine process can also change a process's affinity,
> but it can have higher overhead.
Yes, that's better. But AFAI
It's hard to keep the benchmark programs straight.
I ran into one called Worldbench today in
this review
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/27/AR2009012703019.html
and I see it's used quite a bit:
http://www.networkworld.com/reviews/2008/102908-hps-mini-1000-a-new.html
I
Aric Stewart writes:
> +if (!CryptCATAdminAcquireContext(&admin,NULL,0))
> +{
> +ERR("Could not acquire security context\n");
> +return ERROR_GEN_FAILURE;
> +}
> +if (!(cat = CryptCATAdminAddCatalog(admin,catalog,basename,0)))
> +{
> +ERR("Could not add
Looking at test.winehq.org's XP results, it seems we're doing
quite well; some of the remaining failures seem to be unusual situations.
For instance:
msi:msi.c is passing flawlessly on 7 out of 10 computers,
and on one of the computers, it has just one failure:
http://test.winehq.org/data/8f829034
Aric Stewart writes:
> +if (key_name[0]=='\\' && key_name[1]=='\\')
> +{
> +static const WCHAR remoteW[] = {'U','n','a','b','l','e','
> ','t','o',' ','a','d','d',' ','k','e','y','s',' ','t','o','
> ','r','e','m','o','t','e',' ','m','a','c','h','i','n','e',' ','%','s','\n',0};
T
2009/1/28 Paul TBBle Hampson :
> The only position I have on this is that this code exists and if the
> vertex shader code exists, I am unaware of it. The last comment I
> thought I read regarding vertex shaders was that they had produced a
> marked speed decrease (in my thread late last year about
Hi Alistair,
Alistair Leslie-Hughes wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Changelog:
> shdocvw: OnAmbientPropertyChange should refresh all properties
> with a DISPID_UNKNOWN
It would be better to add test for it so we know which properties should
we refresh (even if most of them would be todo_wine ATM).
Thank
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 09:46:23AM +0100, Henri Verbeet wrote:
> 2009/1/28 Paul TBBle Hampson :
>> On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 12:19:32PM +0100, Henri Verbeet wrote:
>>> Sure, but so does just faking the device caps.
>> I don't see that as having a chance of making it into the Wine tree.
> Indeed. Ho
On Tuesday 27 January 2009 18:29:10 Rob Shearman wrote:
> It doesn't make much sense to leave the lcdfilter variable in the
> function if you're going to remove the if condition depending on it,
> since it only has one other use.
> However, It might have been the intention of the author of this co
Jesse Allen ha scritto:
>
> The DIB engine is really unlikely to help starcraft the game at all.
> However, try staredit.exe ;)
>
> Jesse
>
The engine in its current state will, IMO, help just those apps that
don't require real time graphics but do make many drawings on dibs, so
requiring man
2009/1/28 Paul TBBle Hampson :
> On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 12:19:32PM +0100, Henri Verbeet wrote:
>> Sure, but so does just faking the device caps.
>
> I don't see that as having a chance of making it into the Wine tree.
>
Indeed. However, it does mean that an important part of this patch
isn't used
25 matches
Mail list logo
