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
https://newtestbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=2356
Your paranoid andr
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
https://newtestbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=2351
Your paranoid andr
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
https://newtestbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=2352
Your paranoid andr
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
https://newtestbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=2350
Your paranoid andr
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
https://newtestbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=2349
Your paranoid andr
Daniel Wendt writes:
> @@ -308,6 +308,11 @@ static int get_arc_points( PHYSDEV dev, const RECT
> *rect, POINT start, POINT end
> }
>
> memmove( points, points + count, (pos - count) * sizeof(POINT) );
> +
> +if (GetGraphicsMode( dev->hdc ) == GM_ADVANCED)
> +{
> +LPto
Aric Stewart writes:
> @@ -1684,7 +1684,7 @@ UINT WINAPI ImmGetDescriptionA(
>
>HeapFree( GetProcessHeap(), 0, buf );
>
> - return len;
> + return min( len - 1, uBufLen );
> }
This may do the right thing on failure, but in an ugly way. A few
overflow tests would be a good idea.
--
A
Jactry writes:
> +chBuffer = HeapAlloc(GetProcessHeap(), HEAP_ZERO_MEMORY, size+2);
> +if(!chBuffer)
> +{
> +CloseHandle(hFile);
> +return HRESULT_FROM_WIN32(GetLastError());
> +}
It's not useful to zero the buffer since you are reading into it. Also
GetLastError
Akihiro Sagawa writes:
> @@ -6519,11 +6519,17 @@ static DWORD get_glyph_outline(GdiFont
> *incoming_font, UINT glyph, UINT format,
> }
>
> lpgm->gmBlackBoxX = (right - left) >> 6;
> +if (lpgm->gmBlackBoxX == 0)
> +lpgm->gmBlackBoxX = 1;
> lpgm->gmBlackBoxY = (top - b
Aric Stewart writes:
> @@ -530,12 +591,18 @@ static BOOL CALLBACK
> _ImmAssociateContextExEnumProc(HWND hwnd, LPARAM lParam)
> */
> BOOL WINAPI ImmAssociateContextEx(HWND hWnd, HIMC hIMC, DWORD dwFlags)
> {
> +IMMThreadData* thread_data = NULL;
> +
> TRACE("(%p, %p, 0x%x):\n", hWnd,
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
https://newtestbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=2342
Your paranoid andr
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
https://newtestbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=2346
Your paranoid andr
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
https://newtestbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=2340
Your paranoid andr
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
https://newtestbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=2345
Your paranoid andr
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
https://newtestbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=2344
Your paranoid andr
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
https://newtestbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=2343
Your paranoid andr
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
https://newtestbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=2341
Your paranoid andr
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
https://newtestbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=2339
Your paranoid andr
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
https://newtestbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=2338
Your paranoid andr
On Thu, 26 Sep 2013, Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
[...]
> Obviously you need nothing to know about the test except that it works with
> a COM-port, so the only thing you'd need to investigate is the difference
> between VMs in COM-port setup,
There's none. All the VMs, wxppro, w7u, w7pro64, etc have th
20 matches
Mail list logo
