2011/8/20 Frédéric Delanoy :
>> And it was handy already:
>> http://buildbot.kegel.com/builders/runtests/builds/103 was 1/3, and was ok
>> http://buildbot.kegel.com/builders/runtests/builds/104 was 2/3, and
>> had problems.
>
> I like the "blamelist" section ;)
> But seriously you could probably r
On 20 August 2011 23:49, Stefan Dösinger wrote:
> The graphs are nice to click through them,
Well, it's Flash. Note that the patch has some issues, style being
perhaps the most obvious, but there's no point even talking about that
without seeing numbers first. Also, since people tend to get this
w
Hi Dan,
That's unfortunate, looks like I have not run properly the non-regression
layer.
Will look at these failures, and hopefully will get used to it enough for
next patch submissions.
Thanks,
2011/8/20 Dan Kegel
> Hi Norbert,
> patch 2/3 has a couple failures here:
> http://buildbot.kegel.
Hi,
I should add that my test system is a Linux Nvidia driver, and I don't have
any ATI available.
On this configuration, I do receive non negative location values for all
input uniforms (even if they are not used).
This may indeed vary depending on the target system.
Thanks,
2011/8/20 Stefan Dö
2011/8/20 Dan Kegel :
> 2011/8/19 Dan Kegel :
>> I'll change the buildbot so it tests each subset of a patch series,
>> and pinpoint the one that broke things.
>
> For the record, this is implemented now, e.g.
> http://buildbot.kegel.com/builders/runtests/builds/99 is 9/10, and is ok
> http://buil
Sure.
Internally I am producing CSV files, which are later generated as XML files.
That's not a problem to upload them in parallel to the HTML page, will look
at it tomorrow.
Thanks,
2011/8/20 Henri Verbeet
> On 20 August 2011 18:46, Norbert Lataille wrote:
> > Performance gains (for parts 1/
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am 20.08.2011 um 22:28 schrieb Henri Verbeet:
> On 20 August 2011 18:46, Norbert Lataille wrote:
>> Performance gains (for parts 1/2/3) on WoW:
>> http://norbert.lataille.free.fr/constants.html
>> Results for 3dmark06, X3: http://norbert.lataille.fr
On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 2:12 PM, Dan Kegel wrote:
> Hi Norbert,
> patch 2/3 has a couple failures here:
> http://buildbot.kegel.com/builders/runtests/builds/104
> ../../../tools/runtest -q -P wine -M d3d9.dll -T ../../.. -p
> d3d9_test.exe.so visual.c && touch visual.ok
> ...
> visual.c:4991: Test
2011/8/19 Dan Kegel :
> I'll change the buildbot so it tests each subset of a patch series,
> and pinpoint the one that broke things.
For the record, this is implemented now, e.g.
http://buildbot.kegel.com/builders/runtests/builds/99 is 9/10, and is ok
http://buildbot.kegel.com/builders/runtests/
Hi Norbert,
patch 2/3 has a couple failures here:
http://buildbot.kegel.com/builders/runtests/builds/104
../../../tools/runtest -q -P wine -M d3d9.dll -T ../../.. -p
d3d9_test.exe.so visual.c && touch visual.ok
...
visual.c:4991: Test failed: quad 1 has color , expected 0x00bfbf80
visual.c:
On 20 August 2011 18:46, Norbert Lataille wrote:
> Patch is forcing WINED3D_BUFFER_HASDESC flag at Index Buffer creation time,
I doubt this works properly, unloads will drop it again.
On 20 August 2011 18:46, Norbert Lataille wrote:
> Performance gains (for parts 1/2/3) on WoW:
> http://norbert.lataille.free.fr/constants.html
> Results for 3dmark06, X3: http://norbert.lataille.free.fr/perf.html
> (line: Constants).
>
Do you have those in a reasonable format as well?
Hey everyone, just sending you this email to give a heads up about the
status of my GSoC project.
I set out to implement the action mapping features of DirectInput8,
what I have now is:
* EnumDevicesBySemantics: Fully implemented
* SetActionMap: Fully implemented
* BuildActionMap: Fully implement
2011/8/20 Dan Kegel :
> 2011/8/20 Frédéric Delanoy :
>> So, you should always use the numbering specified by the author IMHO
>
> I wish it were so easy. It is very difficult to recognize patch series
> without relying on them being sent in order.
> I've tried:
> take all unprocessed messages
> d
please ignore also that one. APPINFO_QueryOption needs to be fixed first
Am 20.08.2011 17:19, schrieb André Hentschel:
>
> fixed the leak
> ---
> dlls/mshtml/nsembed.c | 62 +++-
> 1 files changed, 30 insertions(+), 32 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/
2011/8/20 Frédéric Delanoy :
>>> I thought the Date: field was set by the client, so server
>>> races shouldn't matter.
>> Sorry, missed that you use that and not the order you receive it.
>
> That's not always reliable: say you commit locally patches [1-2/3] on
> day D and patch [3/3] on day D+1
>
2011/8/20 Dan Kegel :
> 2011/8/20 Frédéric Delanoy :
>> IIRC someone told me some time ago to resent the whole series with
>> (try N+1) for tests processed by testbot. The (resend) is just a hint
>> to AJ that that very patch hasn't been revised, just regenerated.
>
> Yeah. And sometimes the body
On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 16:34, Michael Stefaniuc wrote:
> On 08/20/2011 04:28 PM, Dan Kegel wrote:
>> On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 3:43 AM, Michael Stefaniuc
>> wrote:
>>> On 08/20/2011 05:06 AM, Dan Kegel wrote:
Hmm. You sent 10/10 before 1/10. My patch series recognizer
rejected the ser
On 08/20/2011 04:28 PM, Dan Kegel wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 3:43 AM, Michael Stefaniuc
> wrote:
>> On 08/20/2011 05:06 AM, Dan Kegel wrote:
>>> Hmm. You sent 10/10 before 1/10. My patch series recognizer
>>> rejected the series. It would be hard to fix. Let's see if we can
>>> live wit
On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 3:43 AM, Michael Stefaniuc wrote:
> On 08/20/2011 05:06 AM, Dan Kegel wrote:
>> Hmm. You sent 10/10 before 1/10. My patch series recognizer
>> rejected the series. It would be hard to fix. Let's see if we can
>> live with the rule "patch series must be sent in order".
>
2011/8/20 Frédéric Delanoy :
> IIRC someone told me some time ago to resent the whole series with
> (try N+1) for tests processed by testbot. The (resend) is just a hint
> to AJ that that very patch hasn't been revised, just regenerated.
Yeah. And sometimes the body says "No changes since last tr
On 08/20/2011 05:06 AM, Dan Kegel wrote:
> 2011/8/19 Frédéric Delanoy :
>> The last [10/10] patch was the cause. I sent an updated version.
>
> Hmm. You sent 10/10 before 1/10. My patch series recognizer
> rejected the series. It would be hard to fix. Let's see if we can
> live with the rule "
2011/8/20 Dan Kegel :
> 2011/8/19 Frédéric Delanoy :
>> The last [10/10] patch was the cause. I sent an updated version.
>
> Hmm. You sent 10/10 before 1/10.
Yeah, I thought it was sufficient, but testbot choked on it and waited
for the remaining patches in the series.
> My patch series recogniz
23 matches
Mail list logo
