Gerald Pfeifer <gerald(a)pfeifer.com> writes:
> ...like their sole user.
>
> Otherwise this warns on everything which is not __linux__. ;-)
That's a feature. It needs to be implemented on other platforms.
--
Alexandre Julliard
julliard(a)winehq.org
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=17990
Your paranoid android.
=== WINEBUILD (build) ===
Patch failed to apply
When I debug a program with winedbg, it's output never goes to the
same terminal. If it's compiled with -mconsole, it goes to a new
console window; if compiled with -mwindows, the output is discarded.
Any way to change this behavior?
Am 20.04.2012 16:20, schrieb David Adam:
>
> + if (adjacency)
>
>
I'm not sure that this is correct, but why is adjacency not touched?
What should be returned for adjacency, maybe a test will show it? I
guess the temp ID3DXBuffer should be returned instead of leaked when all
is successful...
Cheers
Rico
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=17979
Your paranoid android.
=== WNT4WSSP6 (32 bit) ===
No test summary line found
=== W2KPROSP4 (32 bit) ===
No test summary line found
=== WXPPROSP3 (32 bit) ===
No test summary line found
=== W2K3R2SESP2 (32 bit) ===
No test summary line found
=== WVISTAADM (32 bit) ===
No test summary line found
=== W2K8SE (32 bit) ===
No test summary line found
=== W7PRO (32 bit) ===
No test summary line found
=== W7PROX64 (32 bit) ===
No test summary line found
=== TEST64_W7SP1 (32 bit) ===
No test summary line found
=== W7PROX64 (64 bit) ===
No test summary line found
=== TEST64_W7SP1 (64 bit) ===
No test summary line found
In dlls/shell32/shell32.rc I see the following fixme:
/* FIXME: Following three resources are not yet added */
/* @makedep: folder_open.ico */
IDI_SHELL_FOLDER_OPEN_SMALL ICON folder_open.ico
/* @makedep: folder_open.ico */
IDI_SHELL_FOLDER_OPEN_LARGE ICON folder_open.ico
/* @makedep: folder_open.ico */
IDI_SHELL_FOLDER_SMALL_XP ICON folder_open.ico
However folder_open.ico is generated from an SVG file and we seem to be
having it in multiple sizes. Also this fixme has been there forever. So
is there really still something to be fixed?
--
Francois Gouget <fgouget(a)free.fr> http://fgouget.free.fr/
"Lotto: A tax on people who are bad at math." -- unknown
"Windows: Microsoft's tax on computer illiterates." -- WE7U
Hi all,
GSoC is starting this year and, if we want to have good applications, we
need to update our proposals. Usually the most attention is directed
into adding new ones, while we keep obviously bad (or just bad IMO)
proposals on the page. I'm planning to remove following project proposals:
Security - implement sandboxing
Theming - Implement Wine theming support
NTDLL - support performance registry keys
Winelib Aware Scons (or cmake)
Cleanup Winemenubuilder to support generating Application Bundles on Mac
OS X
Wine-based application virtualization
If someone knows a reason to not remove them, please reply.
Cheers,
Jacek
Il 19 aprile 2012 19:37, Józef Kucia <joseph.kucia(a)gmail.com> ha scritto:
> ---
> dlls/d3dx9_36/tests/surface.c | 65 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 files changed, 65 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/dlls/d3dx9_36/tests/surface.c b/dlls/d3dx9_36/tests/surface.c
> index 87aa03e..51d6ebd 100644
> --- a/dlls/d3dx9_36/tests/surface.c
> +++ b/dlls/d3dx9_36/tests/surface.c
> @@ -22,6 +22,8 @@
> #include "wine/test.h"
> #include "d3dx9tex.h"
> #include "resources.h"
> +#undef MAKE_DDHRESULT
> +#include "ddraw.h"
>
I'm not sure that's a good idea. ddraw.h is not included in recent
DirectX SDKs and the relevant definitions are "gone", as far as I
know. So I think d3dx9 or its tests should not depend on that header.
I'd just (re)declare the stuff you need privately in the test source
file instead. You don't even need to use the same
types/defines/variables names as those from ddraw.h, you just have to
keep them compatible.
On that point, I see that MSDN mentions the equivalent DDS_HEADER and
DDS_PIXELFORMAT structures
(http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/bb943991%28v=vs.85%…),
except those don't seem to be defined in the MS headers either. I
guess you are free to use whatever names you like...