On 2/23/11 12:13 PM, Austin English wrote:
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 03:17, Damjan Jovanovic wrote:
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 11:38 AM, Austin English
wrote:
--
-Austin
So test.winehq.org doesn't test Win9x any more, but why are we
throwing away perfectly good Win9x tests that took years to
On 2/23/11 2:38 AM, Austin English wrote:
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 01:32, Paul Vriens wrote:
On 02/23/2011 10:15 AM, Austin English wrote:
SetLastError(0xdeadbeef);
ret = GetFullPathNameW(NULL, 0, NULL, NULL);
I think you can get rid of the above two as well as they are merely used
On 2/22/11 10:44 PM, Tom Wickline wrote:
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 10:52 AM, James McKenzie
mailto:jjmckenzi...@earthlink.net>> wrote:
On 2/22/11 4:37 AM, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
James McKenziemailto:jjmckenzi...@earthlink.net>> writes:
First, my tirade was not int
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 03:17, Damjan Jovanovic wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 11:38 AM, Austin English
> wrote:
>> --
>> -Austin
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> So test.winehq.org doesn't test Win9x any more, but why are we
> throwing away perfectly good Win9x tests that took years to get in?
Because the cod
Am 23.02.2011 19:32, schrieb Alexandre Julliard:
> André Hentschel writes:
>
>> @@ -23,6 +23,7 @@
>>
>> # define EPERM 1
>> # define ENOENT 2
>> +# define ENOFILE ENOENT
>
> I don't see that in the MS headers.
>
true, sorry again
--
Best Regards, André Hentschel
Vitaly Perov writes:
> @@ -7247,7 +7247,7 @@ static BOOL get_job_info_2(job_t *job, JOB_INFO_2W
> *ji2, LPBYTE buf, DWORD cbBuf
> else
> {
> /* align DEVMODE to a DWORD boundary */
> -shift= (4 - ( (DWORD_PTR) ptr & 3)) & 3;
> +shift= ptr ?
André Hentschel writes:
> @@ -23,6 +23,7 @@
>
> # define EPERM 1
> # define ENOENT 2
> +# define ENOFILE ENOENT
I don't see that in the MS headers.
--
Alexandre Julliard
julli...@winehq.org
Wolfram Sang writes:
> @@ -988,6 +988,9 @@ static void test_LoadImage(void)
> bmpimage[0x18]++; /* biWidth > 65535 */
> test_LoadImageFile("BMP (too wide)", bmpimage, sizeof(bmpimage), "bmp",
> 0);
> bmpimage[0x18]--;
> +bmpimage[0x11]++; /* biSize > 2^24 */
> +test_LoadIm
sry, please ignore that one.
--
Best Regards, André Hentschel
Nikolay Sivov wrote:
> On 2/23/2011 19:56, Michael Stefaniuc wrote:
>> Nikolay Sivov wrote:
>>> On 2/23/2011 19:28, Amine Khaldi wrote:
CIDs 1581 and 1583.
@@ -1852,6 +1852,7 @@ COMBOEX_EditWndProc (HWND hwnd, UINT uMsg,
WPARAM wParam, LPARAM lParam,
case VK_UP:
>
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 08:24:46PM +0300, Nikolay Sivov wrote:
> >>> }
> >>>+break;
> >>> case DL_CANCELDRAG:
> >>> /* Clear drag arrow */
> >>> DrawInsert(hwnd, hwndList, -1);
> >>Why? Looks to me it's fine to clear on dropped case too. Coverity is a
> >>bit paranoi
On 2/23/2011 19:56, Michael Stefaniuc wrote:
Nikolay Sivov wrote:
On 2/23/2011 19:28, Amine Khaldi wrote:
CIDs 1581 and 1583.
@@ -1852,6 +1852,7 @@ COMBOEX_EditWndProc (HWND hwnd, UINT uMsg,
WPARAM wParam, LPARAM lParam,
case VK_UP:
step = -1;
+break;
case
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=9432
Your paranoid android.
Nikolay Sivov wrote:
> On 2/23/2011 19:28, Amine Khaldi wrote:
>> CIDs 1581 and 1583.
>> @@ -1852,6 +1852,7 @@ COMBOEX_EditWndProc (HWND hwnd, UINT uMsg,
>> WPARAM wParam, LPARAM lParam,
>>
>> case VK_UP:
>> step = -1;
>> +break;
>> case VK_DOWN:
>> /* by
Vitaly Perov wrote:
> +if (!hKey) RegCloseKey(hKey);
This is a typo.
--
Dmitry.
2011/2/23 Amine Khaldi :
> CID 1585.
>
> Regards,
> Amine.
>
This doesn't seem to be the correct fix. With that break you aren't
going to return any string and that will cause problems thereafter.
You should replace the "case 2:" with "default:" instead (like
BWRITERSPR_RASTOUT some rows above).
On 2/23/2011 19:28, Amine Khaldi wrote:
CIDs 1581 and 1583.
@@ -1852,6 +1852,7 @@ COMBOEX_EditWndProc (HWND hwnd, UINT uMsg,
WPARAM wParam, LPARAM lParam,
case VK_UP:
step = -1;
+break;
case VK_DOWN:
/* by default, step is 1 */
oldItem = Sen
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 05:28:28PM +0100, Amine Khaldi wrote:
> CIDs 1581 and 1583.
>
> Regards,
> Amine.
the comboex one seems to be intended to fall through to the next case.
Ciao, Marcus
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 07:29:41AM -0700, Vitaliy Margolen wrote:
> On 02/22/2011 09:30 PM, Marcus Meissner wrote:
> >Hi,
> >
> >CID 1181. copying a pointer to a struct into a struct is likely bad,
> >fixed.
> >
> >-memcpy(&infoW,&info, sizeof(info));
> >+memcpy(&infoW, info, sizeof(*info))
On 02/22/2011 09:30 PM, Marcus Meissner wrote:
Hi,
CID 1181. copying a pointer to a struct into a struct is likely bad,
fixed.
-memcpy(&infoW,&info, sizeof(info));
+memcpy(&infoW, info, sizeof(*info));
Should probably use direct struct copying instead:
infoW = *info;
Vitaliy.
On 2/23/11 1:27 PM, Nikolay Sivov wrote:
On 2/23/2011 15:25, Jacek Caban wrote:
On 2/23/11 1:21 PM, Nikolay Sivov wrote:
-TRACE("(%p)->(%p %p)\n", This, newChild, outNewChild);
-
-hr = IXMLDOMNode_get_nodeType(newChild,&type);
+hr = IXMLDOMNode_get_nodeType(child,&type);
if(FA
On 2/23/2011 15:25, Jacek Caban wrote:
On 2/23/11 1:21 PM, Nikolay Sivov wrote:
-TRACE("(%p)->(%p %p)\n", This, newChild, outNewChild);
-
-hr = IXMLDOMNode_get_nodeType(newChild,&type);
+hr = IXMLDOMNode_get_nodeType(child,&type);
if(FAILED(hr) || type == NODE_ATTRIBUTE) {
-
On 2/23/11 1:21 PM, Nikolay Sivov wrote:
-TRACE("(%p)->(%p %p)\n", This, newChild, outNewChild);
-
-hr = IXMLDOMNode_get_nodeType(newChild,&type);
+hr = IXMLDOMNode_get_nodeType(child,&type);
if(FAILED(hr) || type == NODE_ATTRIBUTE) {
-if(outNewChild) *outNewChild = NULL
On 2/23/2011 03:33, Nikolay Sivov wrote:
Remove forward to removeChild() method for nodes
Ignore that please, I'll resend all 5 patches soon.
Hello folks,
Recently we (myself and Urias from Haiku) have been working on getting
the coverity scans up and running again. I'm happy to announce that we
succeeded ! :)
I submitted a scan and the results are up online. I'll submit further
scans when necessary, like it's already done with cl
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 11:38 AM, Austin English
wrote:
> --
> -Austin
>
>
>
>
So test.winehq.org doesn't test Win9x any more, but why are we
throwing away perfectly good Win9x tests that took years to get in?
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 01:32, Paul Vriens wrote:
> On 02/23/2011 10:15 AM, Austin English wrote:
>>
>> SetLastError(0xdeadbeef);
>> ret = GetFullPathNameW(NULL, 0, NULL, NULL);
>
> I think you can get rid of the above two as well as they are merely used to
> trigger the ERROR_CALL_NOT_I
On 02/23/2011 10:15 AM, Austin English wrote:
SetLastError(0xdeadbeef);
ret = GetFullPathNameW(NULL, 0, NULL, NULL);
I think you can get rid of the above two as well as they are merely used
to trigger the ERROR_CALL_NOT_IMPLEMENTED.
-is_win9x = !ret&& GetLastError() == ERRO
28 matches
Mail list logo