Marvin wrote:
> === windowsxp (32 bit image) ===
> image.c:2736: Test failed: GdipLoadImageFromStream error 2
> image.c:2739: Test failed: GdipGetImageType error 2
> image.c:2749: Test failed: GdipCloneImage error 2
> image: unhandled exception c005 at 4EBB42CD
Testbot really needs to reset
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://winetestbot.dolphin/JobDetails.pl?Key=66
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://winetestbot.dolphin/JobDetails.pl?Key=67
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://winetestbot.dolphin/JobDetails.pl?Key=62
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://winetestbot.dolphin/JobDetails.pl?Key=64
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://winetestbot.dolphin/JobDetails.pl?Key=63
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://winetestbot.dolphin/JobDetails.pl?Key=60
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://winetestbot.dolphin/JobDetails.pl?Key=55
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://winetestbot.dolphin/JobDetails.pl?Key=58
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://winetestbot.dolphin/JobDetails.pl?Key=61
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://winetestbot.dolphin/JobDetails.pl?Key=59
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://winetestbot.dolphin/JobDetails.pl?Key=57
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://winetestbot.dolphin/JobDetails.pl?Key=54
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://winetestbot.dolphin/JobDetails.pl?Key=56
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://winetestbot.dolphin/JobDetails.pl?Key=43
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://winetestbot.dolphin/JobDetails.pl?Key=44
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://winetestbot.dolphin/JobDetails.pl?Key=41
Your paranoid android.
Vincent Povirk wrote:
> > The patch is marked as 'build failure', but it builds just fine here.
> > What kind of build failure is that?
>
> Did you try building it on a Mac?
I don't have a Mac here, what's the failure there?
--
Dmitry.
> The patch is marked as 'build failure', but it builds just fine here.
> What kind of build failure is that?
Did you try building it on a Mac?
André Hentschel wrote:
> -ok(mbc == -28, "mbc is %d\n", mbc);
> +ok((signed char)mbc == -28, "mbc is %d\n", mbc);
> if(bUsedDefaultChar) ok(*bUsedDefaultChar == FALSE, "bUsedDefaultChar is
> %d\n", *bUsedDefaultChar);
> ok(GetLastError() == 0xdeadbeef, "GetLastError() is %u\n",
Am 24.07.2012 06:58, schrieb Alex Henrie:
> 2012/7/23 Austin English :
>> Judging by similar recent commits
>> (http://source.winehq.org/git/wine.git/commitdiff/f320f6cf4843eab3d22b60674808e4e3de964b5a),
>> 1 seems to be the way to go.
>
> Thanks for the answer. What makes me uneasy about this app
Am 24.07.2012 21:30, schrieb André Hentschel:
> ---
> dlls/msvcp90/ios.c |2 +-
> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
This has been obsoleted due to Piotrs changes, thx.
--
Best Regards, André Hentschel
On 07/24/12 17:47, Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
> Vincent Povirk wrote:
>
I disagree with many of the choices in this series (for example, I
think casting an interface pointer to an inherited interface is fine,
and replacing that with QueryInterface just adds unnecessary
additional
19 jul 2012 kl. 20:00 skrev Per Johansson:
> 19 jul 2012 kl. 18:11 skrev Alexandre Julliard :
>
>> You really don't want to do that.
>
> Alright, but like I said earlier there's really no other good way to support
> associations without using Objective-C. I'll send a new version without
> ass
Vincent Povirk wrote:
> >> I disagree with many of the choices in this series (for example, I
> >> think casting an interface pointer to an inherited interface is fine,
> >> and replacing that with QueryInterface just adds unnecessary
> >> additional logic), but I don't think any semantics have b
>> I disagree with many of the choices in this series (for example, I
>> think casting an interface pointer to an inherited interface is fine,
>> and replacing that with QueryInterface just adds unnecessary
>> additional logic), but I don't think any semantics have been changed
>> and overall it's
Vincent Povirk wrote:
> I disagree with many of the choices in this series (for example, I
> think casting an interface pointer to an inherited interface is fine,
> and replacing that with QueryInterface just adds unnecessary
> additional logic), but I don't think any semantics have been changed
Looks good, thanks.
I disagree with many of the choices in this series (for example, I
think casting an interface pointer to an inherited interface is fine,
and replacing that with QueryInterface just adds unnecessary
additional logic), but I don't think any semantics have been changed
and overall it's a good cleanup.
Looks good, thanks.
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=20277
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=20278
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=20281
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=20280
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=20279
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=20282
Your paranoid android
Nikolay Sivov writes:
> +DWORD NTAPI RtlRunOnceExecuteOnce(PRTL_RUN_ONCE initonce,
> PRTL_RUN_ONCE_INIT_FN callback, void *parameter, void **ctxt)
> +{
> +#ifdef __linux__
> +if (!use_futexes()) return FALSE;
> +
> +for (;;)
> +{
> +DWORD_PTR val = (DWORD_PTR)interlocked_cmpx
Detlef Riekenberg writes:
> +flags = 0xdeadbeeffeedfaceULL;
Don't use long long constants.
--
Alexandre Julliard
julli...@winehq.org
Michael Stefaniuc wrote:
> > @@ -102,7 +104,7 @@ static HRESULT WINAPI
> > BmpFrameDecode_QueryInterface(IWICBitmapFrameDecode *iface
> > IsEqualIID(&IID_IWICBitmapSource, iid) ||
> > IsEqualIID(&IID_IWICBitmapFrameDecode, iid))
> > {
> > -*ppv = iface;
> > +
On 07/20/12 19:32, Dan Kegel wrote:
I have not tested at all on 64 bits, and am only guessing on the
calling convention stuff.
The calling convention is correct. The class name is _Container_base0
(not _Container_base).
I can't say anything about the implementation. I don't know what this
cla
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=20268
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=20269
Your paranoid android
Hello Dmitry,
On 07/24/2012 08:12 AM, Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
> ---
> dlls/windowscodecs/jpegformat.c | 23 +--
> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/dlls/windowscodecs/jpegformat.c b/dlls/windowscodecs/jpegformat.c
> index 53d7ec4..2c77d4f 1006
Hello Dmitry,
On 07/24/2012 08:01 AM, Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
> The patches in this series do not depend on each other, numeration is just
> for a convenience. Patches do basically the same job for different objects,
> so I decided to not invent a new subject for every separate kind of object.
> -
44 matches
Mail list logo
