"Charles Davis" wrote:
Why don't you use the same way of comparing EMFs as other tests do,
compare_emf_bits()/dump_emf_bits()/dump_emf_records()?
Because I didn't look. I guess I'll rewrite the tests to use these
functions.
OK, here's a version that uses the same method of comparing EMFs as
Charles Davis wrote:
> Charles Davis wrote:
>> Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
>>> "Charles Davis" wrote:
>>>
I've attached the patch so you can build a gdi32_test.exe that contains
my tests.
>>> Why don't you use the same way of comparing EMFs as other tests do,
>>> compare_emf_bits()/dump_emf_
Charles Davis wrote:
> Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
>> "Charles Davis" wrote:
>>
>>> I've attached the patch so you can build a gdi32_test.exe that contains
>>> my tests.
>> Why don't you use the same way of comparing EMFs as other tests do,
>> compare_emf_bits()/dump_emf_bits()/dump_emf_records()?
>>
Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
> "Charles Davis" wrote:
>
>> I've attached the patch so you can build a gdi32_test.exe that contains
>> my tests.
>
> Why don't you use the same way of comparing EMFs as other tests do,
> compare_emf_bits()/dump_emf_bits()/dump_emf_records()?
>
Because I didn't look. I
"Charles Davis" wrote:
I've attached the patch so you can build a gdi32_test.exe that contains
my tests.
Why don't you use the same way of comparing EMFs as other tests do,
compare_emf_bits()/dump_emf_bits()/dump_emf_records()?
--
Dmitry.
Vincent Povirk wrote:
> You still have the loop comparing to 0xff, and the test won't pass on
> windows with the if(0).
Whoops, that must have been an old version of the patch. I fixed the
first one, and the second one should be fixed, too. Now the
BitBlt(...,WHITENESS) call executes on Windows, bu
All right, this should be the last one. The tests pass on Wine, and
should pass on Windows if you un-if(0) the call to BitBlt(...,
WHITENESS). I still don't have any results for the many other Windows
versions (95, 98, ME, NT4, 2000, Vista, Win7), so I'm going to wait for
results from these other p
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 3:50 PM, Charles Davis wrote:
>> If I comment out the for loop and initialize i to 1, the test succeeds
>> on Windows.
>>
> There's one test that succeeds if there are exactly two BitBlt() records
> in the metafile. The test_BitBlt_record() function just increments i
> (thr
Vincent Povirk wrote:
> Now on windows (with s/if(0)/if(1)/) I get lots of:
>
> metafile.c:740: Test failed: unexpected EMF bits: got 01, expected 0xff
>
> metafile.c:740: Test failed: unexpected EMF bits: got 00, expected 0xff
>
> metafile.c:740: Test failed: unexpected EMF bits: got 00, expect
Now on windows (with s/if(0)/if(1)/) I get lots of:
metafile.c:740: Test failed: unexpected EMF bits: got 01, expected 0xff
metafile.c:740: Test failed: unexpected EMF bits: got 00, expected 0xff
metafile.c:740: Test failed: unexpected EMF bits: got 00, expected 0xff
...
You, uh, do realize me
OK, try this one. It has the BitBlt(..., WHITENESS) call if(0)'d out, so
the test doesn't crash. I also fixed the issue with the other BitBlt()
failing on Wine (I used a memory DC).
I also put some tests that depend on the WHITENESS call succeeding into
todo_wine blocks. Oddly enough, the check fo
Vincent Povirk wrote:
> On windows, I get:
>
> metafile.c:705: Test failed: CreateDCA error 1801
Hmm... now that I think about it, I think the call to CreateDCA() should
look like this:
hdcDisplay = CreateDCA("DISPLAY", NULL, NULL, NULL);
>
> metafile.c:710: Test failed: BitBlt error 1801
BitBlt(
On windows, I get:
metafile.c:705: Test failed: CreateDCA error 1801
metafile.c:710: Test failed: BitBlt error 1801
metafile.c:730: Test failed: unexpected EMF bits: got 01, expected 0xff
metafile.c:730: Test failed: unexpected EMF bits: got 00, expected 0xff
metafile.c:730: Test failed: unexp
On closer inspection, you didn't add a call to your static function,
so that was meaningless.
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 1:59 PM, Vincent Povirk
wrote:
> This passes on my Windows XP vm and on Wine here.
>
> On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 12:44 PM, Charles Davis
> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have a test that I
This passes on my Windows XP vm and on Wine here.
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 12:44 PM, Charles Davis wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have a test that I wrote from scratch for bug 4543. It tests the
> operation of BitBlt to a metafile, first from the screen then pure
> whiteness. Unfortunately, I have no Windows
Hi,
I have a test that I wrote from scratch for bug 4543. It tests the
operation of BitBlt to a metafile, first from the screen then pure
whiteness. Unfortunately, I have no Windows boxes to test on, so I need
people to run my test on Windows. After all, I need to verify that this
test is an accur
16 matches
Mail list logo
