Austin English wrote:
> -if (disposition == REG_CREATED_NEW_KEY)
> -win_skip("'dbg,event,order' test doesn't finish on Win9x/WinMe\n");
> -else
> -crash_and_debug(hkey, test_exe, "dbg,event,order");
> +crash_and_debug(hkey, test_exe, "dbg,event,order");
You should che
Austin English wrote:
> len = GlobalGetAtomNameA( (ATOM)i, buf, 2);
> - if (!len) /* the NT way */
> - {
> - ok(GetLastError() == (i ? ERROR_MORE_DATA :
> ERROR_INVALID_PARAMETER) ||
> - GetLastError() == 0xdeadbeef, /* the Win 9x way */
> -
Austin English wrote:
> -if (is_win9x)
> -{
> -expect_viewport_ext(hdc, dpi_x, dpi_y);
> -expect_window_ext(hdc, 254, -254);
> -}
> -else
> -{
> -expect_viewport_ext(hdc, res_x, -res_y);
> -ok( GetWindowExtEx( hdc, &size ), "GetWindowExtEx faile
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=12916
Your paranoid android
2011/7/27 Marvin :
> 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?
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=12866
Your paranoid android
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=12862
Your paranoid android
On 26 July 2011 22:28, Stefan Dösinger wrote:
> -if (state < gl_info->limits.fragment_samplers)
> +if (state < gl_info->limits.combined_samplers)
This looks like it should be a separate change.
> +device->fixed_function_usage_map = 0xff;
This looks questionable, it will ca
On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 09:15:57PM +0200, André Hentschel wrote:
> ---
> dlls/comctl32/propsheet.c |1 -
> dlls/comctl32/rebar.c |2 --
> 2 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/dlls/comctl32/propsheet.c b/dlls/comctl32/propsheet.c
> index f711399..3dd0713 10
2011/7/26 André Hentschel :
> --- a/dlls/comctl32/rebar.c
> +++ b/dlls/comctl32/rebar.c
> @@ -1576,8 +1576,6 @@ REBAR_SizeToHeight(REBAR_INFO *infoPtr, int height)
> iRow++;
> }
> }
> - else
> - extra -= REBAR_SizeChildrenToHeight(infoPtr, first_visible(infoPtr),
Am 26.07.2011 01:17, schrieb Austin English:
> On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 19:15, Austin English wrote:
>> Web space usage was getting a bit high, so I've uploaded a tarball to
>> a file download service:
>> http://www.sendspace.com/file/5hot36
>>
>> austin@aw21 ~ $ sha1sum scan-build-2011-07-02.tar.bz
On Tuesday 26 July 2011 17:33:54 Jacek Caban wrote:
> On 07/26/11 17:22, Henri Verbeet wrote:
> > No, I disagree with the basic idea that stricter tests are necessarily
> > better. The advantage of SUCCEEDED is that it's *less* strict.
>
> We won't agree on that.
I prefer comparison against S_OK(o
On 07/26/11 17:22, Henri Verbeet wrote:
> On 26 July 2011 16:57, Jacek Caban wrote:
>> Seriously, I'm not talking about anything like that. We get to choose
>> between using two things. SUCCEDEED() has no advantages over testing
>> exact values in this context. Testing the exact value has a small,
On 26 July 2011 16:57, Jacek Caban wrote:
> Seriously, I'm not talking about anything like that. We get to choose
> between using two things. SUCCEDEED() has no advantages over testing
> exact values in this context. Testing the exact value has a small, but
> still, advantage. I believe we agree o
On 07/26/11 16:34, Henri Verbeet wrote:
> On 26 July 2011 16:08, Jacek Caban wrote:
>> If there is no cost of having tests more strict (like code
>> complication), it is a good principle IMO. In this case it's a matter of
>> choosing the right way for testing results, so it should be preferable.
>
On 26 July 2011 16:08, Jacek Caban wrote:
> If there is no cost of having tests more strict (like code
> complication), it is a good principle IMO. In this case it's a matter of
> choosing the right way for testing results, so it should be preferable.
>
We're not testing return codes here, so IMO
On 07/26/11 13:04, Henri Verbeet wrote:
> On 26 July 2011 10:57, Jacek Caban wrote:
>> It's better to test for the exact value in tests like hr == S_OK. It
>> makes tests stricter.
> I don't think that making tests more strict than necessary is a good
> principle.
If there is no cost of having te
On 07/26/2011 03:36 AM, James McKenzie wrote:
if (wbuf[0] == 0x20 || wbuf[0] == 0xf020)
-todo_wine
-ok(result == delimiter_tests[i].isdelimiter,
- "wanted ISDELIMITER_W(0x%x) %d, got %d\n",
- delimiter_tests[i].c,
delimite
On 26 July 2011 10:57, Jacek Caban wrote:
> It's better to test for the exact value in tests like hr == S_OK. It
> makes tests stricter.
I don't think that making tests more strict than necessary is a good
principle. (Not that it matters a lot here anyway, for most of these
D3D_OK is the only poss
Hi Austin,
ok(SUCCEEDED(hr), "GetRenderTarget failed, hr %#x.\n", hr);
hr = IDirect3DSurface8_GetDesc(surface, &surface_desc);
+ok(SUCCEEDED(hr), "GetDesc failed, hr %#x.\n", hr);
It's better to test for the exact value in tests like hr == S_OK. It
makes tests stricter. I know ther
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=12826
Your paranoid android
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=12827
Your paranoid android
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=12824
Your paranoid android
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=12823
Your paranoid android
On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 07:39, Dan Kegel wrote:
> Changes since last try:
> - fix remaining todo_wine's
> - add one more testcase for invalid paths (one that doesn't trigger
> help message)
> - simplified create_full_path
> - avoid generating error message in race case where somebody else
> create
2011/7/26 Frédéric Delanoy :
> On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 03:48, Austin English wrote:
>> --
>> -Austin
>
> Already sent similar patches. Not sure AJ likes those.
These should test what is returned by fgetc, not ignore its return value. E.g.:
-c= fgetc(fp);
+ ok((c = fgetc(fp)) == '\r', "fge
26 matches
Mail list logo
