SourceForge forbids download

Dear Wine developers, SourceForge blocked download for some countries by default, such as Iran. (More detail can be found here ) So, if it's not illegal to you to let Iranians download your software, please go to t

Re: user32: Fix a couple of typos.

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=16847 Your paranoid android

Re: user32: Only call SetWindowPos() in UpdateLayeredWindowIndirect() if needed. (try 5)

Adam Martinson wrote: > (We should not be calling SetWindowPos() in UpdateLayeredWindowIndirect() at > all.) > Fixes bug 26924. Much better now, thanks. -- Dmitry.

Re: user32: Only call SetWindowPos() in UpdateLayeredWindowIndirect() if needed. (try 5)

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=16845 Your paranoid android

Re: ID3DXEffect::SetValue

Am 06.02.2012 18:18, schrieb Luis Carlos Busquets Pérez: The current implementation includes a check on param->bytes>= bytes specifically: if (data&& param->bytes>= bytes) { ... } So if bytesbytes returns D3DERR_INVALIDCALL. However, the MS version does not act that way: If the parameter i

Re: ID3DXBaseEffect::SetValue

Am 06.02.2012 18:23, schrieb Luis Carlos Busquets Pérez: The functin returns D3DERR_INVALIDCALL whenever it is tried on a parameter with elements. A check should be included. Why do you think this is the case? How did you test this? I think it's not possible to query the ID3DXBaseEffect interfac

Re: ID3DXEffect::SetValue

On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 09:18, Luis Carlos Busquets Pérez wrote: > The current implementation includes a check on param->bytes >= bytes > > specifically: > > if (data && param->bytes >= bytes) > { > > ... > > } > > So if bytesbytes returns D3DERR_INVALIDCALL. > > However, the MS version does not ac

ID3DXBaseEffect::SetValue

The functin returns D3DERR_INVALIDCALL whenever it is tried on a parameter with elements. A check should be included. Luis

ID3DXEffect::SetValue

The current implementation includes a check on param->bytes >= bytes specifically: if (data && param->bytes >= bytes) { ... } So if bytesbytes returns D3DERR_INVALIDCALL. However, the MS version does not act that way: If the parameter is shorter than the length of the data, then the data th

Re: (try2) quartz: AMFilterData_ParseFilterData returns a pointer to a pointer to filter data

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=16838 Your paranoid android

Re: [2/2] user32: RealChildWindowFromPoint should skip invisible windows.

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=16834 Your paranoid android

Re: [1/2] user32: Add a bunch of RealChildWindowFromPoint tests.

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=16833 Your paranoid android

Re: user32: Only call SetWindowPos() in UpdateLayeredWindowIndirect() if needed. (try 4)

Adam Martinson wrote: > The whole point of the tests I wrote was to show that > UpdateLayeredWindowIndirect() *doesn't* generate window messages, at > least not as far as I've seen. Is there a better way to test that? > Wouldn't these tests fail if it did? A message test could help to prove