From my Win7 x64 with a Soundblaster X-Fi:
D:\Downloads>mmdevapi_test64.exe capture
capture.c:208: Returned periods: 10.0 ms 3.0 ms
capture.c:220: pwfx: 0067A8C0
capture.c:221: Tag: fffe
capture.c:222: bits: 32
capture.c:223: chan: 2
capture.c:224: rate: 48000
capture.c:225: align:
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=13451
Your paranoid android
Am 12.08.2011 15:38, schrieb joerg-cyril.hoe...@t-systems.com:
> Hi,
>
> some native machines on test.winehq time out the winmm:wave tests.
> http://test.winehq.org/data/8c00ee0beff1a9a6be08f32d821186c798d15b9d/win7_win7-x64/winmm:wave.html
>
> Their logs show that they play ~25 times 1 second si
Dear users of machines with Vista/w2k8/w7,
Unfortunately, testbot has no mmdevapi-capture enabled machine.
If you have a capture-enabled sound card, could you please
run the attached patch and report results to me?
How you can tell if capture/recording works on your machine:
Run the regular mmde
On 12 August 2011 13:06, Octavian Voicu wrote:
> As far as I know C99 is not allowed. However, you can emulate round by
> doing:
> floorf(val + 0.5f)
It probably doesn't matter here, but note that that isn't the same as
roundf() for values below zero.
Yes
On Fri, 2011-08-12 at 08:50 +0200, Thomas Heckel wrote:
>
>
> Am 11.08.2011 17:21, schrieb Nowres Rafid:
>
> > I propose to associate .bat and .com files with wine's cmd in GNOME,
> > KDE and others
> >
>
> Did you mean .bat and .cmd?
> This. are the both endings for commandline (batch
Hi,
some native machines on test.winehq time out the winmm:wave tests.
http://test.winehq.org/data/8c00ee0beff1a9a6be08f32d821186c798d15b9d/win7_win7-x64/winmm:wave.html
Their logs show that they play ~25 times 1 second silence and
a few times 0.5 second silence. I believe winetest.exe kills tes
2011/8/12 Octavian Voicu :
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 12:59 PM, Michael Mc Donnell
> wrote:
>>
>> Is it ok to use roundf and rintf? They're both C99 functions.
>
> Hello,
> As far as I know C99 is not allowed. However, you can emulate round by
> doing:
> floorf(val + 0.5f)
> According to [1] floorf
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 1:06 PM, Octavian Voicu
wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 12:59 PM, Michael Mc Donnell
> wrote:
>>
>> Is it ok to use roundf and rintf? They're both C99 functions.
>
> Hello,
> As far as I know C99 is not allowed. However, you can emulate round by
> doing:
> floorf(val + 0.
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 12:59 PM, Michael Mc Donnell
wrote:
> Is it ok to use roundf and rintf? They're both C99 functions.
>
Hello,
As far as I know C99 is not allowed. However, you can emulate round by
doing:
floorf(val + 0.5f)
According to [1] floorf is C99 (only floor is C89), but includin
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 4:07 PM, Michael Mc Donnell
wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 3:01 PM, Matteo Bruni
> wrote:
>> 2011/8/11 Michael Mc Donnell :
>>>
>>> + dst_ptr[0] = src->x < 0.0f ? (SHORT)ceilf(src->x * SHRT_MAX +
>>> 0.5f) :(SHORT)floorf(src->x * SHRT_MAX + 0.5f);
>>
>> You
11 matches
Mail list logo
