[PATCH 1/1] ddraw: Return the primary legacy ddraw device last.

[Stefan Dösinger]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Am 2014-10-14 18:22, schrieb Erich E. Hoover:
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 2:32 AM, Stefan Dösinger
>> Combined with your change that suggests that without any flag 
>> only the NULL guid is enumerated. If so I think that's worth an 
>> explicit check.
> 
> That's correct, for once this also matches the documentation ;) 
> That was the point of that test, what kind of check were you 
> thinking?
Checking guid == NULL in addition to callbackCount == 1.

>> Is the NULL guid enumerated when DDENUM_DETACHEDSECONDARYDEVICES
>>  and/or DDENUM_NONDISPLAYDEVICES are set?
> 
> Yes, the NULL/primary device is always enumerated (unless the 
> callback requests an early stop).
Please add a test for that as well. You don't have to check any detached
or non-display devices, just check that the last GUID * is NULL with
those flags as well.

> Sorry, I thought that you wanted the variable names maintained 
> based on some of the other patches I've done here - I'll fix that.
Yeah, the existing code isn't consistent, that doesn't make things
easier. The best for what new/modified d3d code should look like is
dlls/wined3d/cs.c.

> Taking a look at that code it looks like we're "protecting" such 
> applications from having a problem by copying the memory.
driver_desc and driver_name are static. They will be initialized only
once, but yes, we wouldn't get a segfault.

> I can easily add a separate patch for exploring this, but are we 
> really interested in protecting ourselves from such an app here 
> when we've (to my knowledge) never run into one?  The primary 
> device callback code has been in place for a long time...
I don't have a strong opinion on this, but we already have a game that
modifies the strings passed by another callback function, I think that's
reason enough to check the Windows behavior for this callback function
as well. Don't bother too much about it though, addressing the
regression is more important than satisfying my curiosity.

>> Please extend the test to DirectDrawEnumerateA. MSDN suggests it 
>> is equivalent to 
>> DirectDrawEnumerateExA(DDENUM_NONDISPLAYDEVICES), but I have my 
>> doubts here. Comparing the strings of the non-NULL device
>> against "DirectDraw HAL" and "display" (in the Ex and non-Ex
>> case) would also be a good idea.
> 
> This sounds like something that should be done separately, as we 
> don't currently support the DDENUM_NONDISPLAYDEVICES flag.
I'm not worried too much about the DDENUM_NONDISPLAYDEVICES part. What
needs to be verified is that the last GUID enumerated by
DirectDrawEnumerateA is NULL like in DirectDrawEnumerateExA.

> None of the testbots actually return "DirectDraw HAL"/"display", 
> nor do my tests on a Windows 7 machine.
Ok.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
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=ibRe
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----