Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
> Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
>
> > Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> >
> > > > +
> > > > +/* @makedep: wine_test.ttf */
> > > > +wine_test.ttf RCDATA wine_test.ttf
> > >
> > > How was this file created?
> >
> > It was created with fontforge. Here it is in a .sfd format just i
On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 4:34 PM, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> Bernhard Loos writes:
>
>> ---
>> dlls/ntdll/file.c | 4 ++--
>> dlls/ntdll/tests/file.c | 8
>> 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> The whole point of the wait is to run user APCs...
>
> --
> Alexa
On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 3:34 PM, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> Bernhard Loos writes:
>
>> @@ -37,7 +37,11 @@
>> static HANDLE alarm_event;
>> static BOOL (WINAPI *pDuplicateTokenEx)(HANDLE,DWORD,LPSECURITY_ATTRIBUTES,
>>
>> SECURITY_IMPERSONATION_LEVEL,TOK
El 02/08/11 17:38, Octavian Voicu escribió:
When building a 32-bit wine in a 64-bit build environment with
default glib headers (gstreamer uses glib.h), glib 64-bit types
(such as gint64 and guint64) are not properly defined, causing
many compiler warnings and most likely a broken winegstreamer.d
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=13345
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=13344
Your paranoid android
> Is it your own dialog you are testing or a built-in?
It's the dialog I created for IDirectInput::ConfigureDevices. I'll
give a look in your tests and ask if I need help.
Thanks
Folks,
There won't be any commits for a while, since I'll be on vacation for
the next two weeks. Also release 1.3.27 will be 3 weeks from now instead
of 2. I hope you can all survive the commit withdrawal...
--
Alexandre Julliard
julli...@winehq.org
Hi,
A few more thinks I noticed:
On Thursday 04 August 2011 11:21:22 Michael Mc Donnell wrote:
> +#include
In other libs this is guarded with #ifdef HAVE_FLOAT_H - not sure if there are
any systems that don't have the header and the rest of the code still
compiles, but I recommend to use the s
On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 2:45 PM, Marcus Meissner wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 02, 2011 at 06:25:49PM -0300, Lucas Zawacki wrote:
>> Hello. I need some help here.
>>
>> Before commiting the ConfigureDevices patches tried to add a couple
>> simple tests for the function, the problem is that I now have to tes
On Fri, 5 Aug 2011, Marvin wrote:
[...]
> Full results can be found at
> http://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=13315
[...]
> === WVISTAADM (32 bit psapi_main) ===
> psapi_main.c:110: Test failed: cbNeeded=100
This got me looking into this test. It's a test of EnumProcessModules().
It's supp
Bernhard Loos writes:
> Well, windows doesn't run user apcs at this point, as the tests show.
> I'm not completly sure, if the wait the nonalertable wait is needed to
> run system io apc of the cancelled operation, but an alertable wait
> seems to be wrong.
There's no need for a wait to run syst
Bernhard Loos writes:
> It does check it. If the apc got called during an io operation, the
> operation will fail with ERROR_OPERATION_ABORTED/STATUS_CANCELLED. So
> if it the operation succeeds with an apc scheduled, the pipe was
> opened with an nonalerable io mode.
That's not a very good che
Bernhard Loos writes:
> ---
> dlls/ntdll/file.c |4 ++--
> dlls/ntdll/tests/file.c |8
> 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
The whole point of the wait is to run user APCs...
--
Alexandre Julliard
julli...@winehq.org
Bernhard Loos writes:
> @@ -37,7 +37,11 @@
> static HANDLE alarm_event;
> static BOOL (WINAPI *pDuplicateTokenEx)(HANDLE,DWORD,LPSECURITY_ATTRIBUTES,
>
> SECURITY_IMPERSONATION_LEVEL,TOKEN_TYPE,PHANDLE);
> +static DWORD WINAPI (*pQueueUserAPC)(PAPCFUNC
On Tue, Aug 02, 2011 at 06:25:49PM -0300, Lucas Zawacki wrote:
> Hello. I need some help here.
>
> Before commiting the ConfigureDevices patches tried to add a couple
> simple tests for the function, the problem is that I now have to test
> a dialog. What is the best way to do it? I'm thinking of
Michał Ziętek writes:
> I skipped them because of filesystem redirection on wow64 which makes
> GetSystemDirectory and SearchPath return the wrong values.
> How can I solve this problem?
Getting rid of SearchPath would be a good first step. It's probably in
always in the system directory anyway.
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=13201
Your paranoid android
I skipped them because of filesystem redirection on wow64 which makes
GetSystemDirectory and SearchPath return the wrong values.
How can I solve this problem?
On Fri, 5 Aug 2011, Marvin wrote:
[...]
> === WVISTAADM (32 bit psapi_main) ===
> psapi_main.c:110: Test failed: cbNeeded=100
>
> === W2K8SE (32 bit psapi_main) ===
> psapi_main.c:110: Test failed: cbNeeded=100
>
> === W7PRO (32 bit psapi_main) ===
> psapi_main.c:110: Test failed: cbNeeded=96
>
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=13315
Your paranoid android
Michał Ziętek writes:
> changed message
Please fix the test instead of skipping it.
--
Alexandre Julliard
julli...@winehq.org
22 matches
Mail list logo
