Your mail makes me thing two or three remarks.

I agree that in the plain wine, code must be optimized to use less memory as possible and to be the fastest as possible.
But, the tests are here to check that the implemented function behaves like the windows one.
So, they don't need to be optimized. So, what is the point to worry about efficiency?

It is not important that I allocate 100 floats  for my array even if I use 49 only.
In the same idea, the time in the loop is not important. It is the same if I  spend 1s  in a loop or 1/100s. They are there for testing.
Tests work, it is OK. I think function is optimized in plain wine, so I can send the patch. Tests don't work. I must figure out why.

About coding style, I can not understand the policy.
If I look in the d3dx9_36/math.c file, I can see almost as much styles as functions.
So, complaining about the style I use is a non-sense for me.

Nozomi
De : Rico Schüller <kgbricola@web.de>
À : wine-devel@winehq.org; Nozomi Kodama <nozomi.kodama@yahoo.com>
Envoyé le : Mardi 4 septembre 2012 2h44
Objet : Re: d3dx9_36 [try 3]: Implement D3DXSHRotate

On 04.09.2012 13:19, Nozomi Kodama wrote:
+    FLOAT expected, in[100], out[100],
...
+    for (i = 0; i < 49; i++)
+        in[i] = i + 1.01f;

I guess this belongs together.

I'd like to make some suggestions, please don't take it personally.

When you got a comment on a patch, read it carefully. Think about it, if it makes sens to do the change (just adding what I've said is not always the best, it just gives you a hint, that you may improve some things, the list is not always complete and different people may have different suggestions) and try to improve your patch. After you are done, read your patch. Well mistakes happen, especially when you try to get something done really fast. (1) Take you some time and read it again and see if you've done that as best as possible and if you are happy with the code you've done, then submit it. If you've found a bug don't submit, fix it and go to #1.

The earlier a bug is found the cheaper is it to solve it. I hope this helps a bit and it hopefully saves you some time to get a patch in the feature accepted. Thought I'd like to thank you for your patience and hopefully I haven't annoyed you and we'll see some good quality patches in the feature from you. :-)

Cheers
Rico