Paul Vriens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It turns out we had a lof of failures with this test on win98. It looks like
> win98 doesn't assign a new handle when the same registry key is opened. This
> means that the close test close the main handle and we thus have an issue in
> the
> first test a
Alexandre Julliard wrote:
Paul Vriens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
So if we only have crashes on win9x we don't care. If we can avoid
crashes/failures on win9x (by skip or other means) we don't run them
on win9x. And if they crash on something higher then win9x we disable
them totally.
Does tha
On 30.03.2007 09:14, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> Stefan Dösinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Shouldn't then the wine code do a version check too and behave differently
>> if
>> the winver is set to win98?
>
> Only if there is an app that does the same version check and depends
> on both be
Stefan Dösinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Shouldn't then the wine code do a version check too and behave differently if
> the winver is set to win98?
Only if there is an app that does the same version check and depends
on both behaviors. It's very unlikely that an app would want to crash
whe
Alexandre Julliard wrote:
Paul Vriens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
yesterday a patch of mine was committed to test more profile stuff
from kernel32. When I have a look now at test.winehq.org I see that
some test(s) crash on win98 but not on others.
Although I could use a if(0) construction (
> Sure; the thing we want to avoid is version checks in tests, because
> then things don't get tested on Wine when the version is changed. But
> as long as win98 is detected by its missing features then skipping
> things is fine.
Shouldn't then the wine code do a version check too and behave differ
Paul Vriens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So if we only have crashes on win9x we don't care. If we can avoid
> crashes/failures on win9x (by skip or other means) we don't run them
> on win9x. And if they crash on something higher then win9x we disable
> them totally.
>
> Does that make sense?
Sur
Alexandre Julliard wrote:
Paul Vriens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
But in this case we're dealing with win98 which new apps will not support
anymore!
Of course the alternative is to simply stop worrying about test
failures on win98...
I agree with that one.
So if we only have crashes on wi
Paul Vriens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But in this case we're dealing with win98 which new apps will not support
> anymore!
Of course the alternative is to simply stop worrying about test
failures on win98...
--
Alexandre Julliard
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Alexandre Julliard wrote:
Paul Vriens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
yesterday a patch of mine was committed to test more profile stuff
from kernel32. When I have a look now at test.winehq.org I see that
some test(s) crash on win98 but not on others.
Although I could use a if(0) construction (as
Paul Vriens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> yesterday a patch of mine was committed to test more profile stuff
> from kernel32. When I have a look now at test.winehq.org I see that
> some test(s) crash on win98 but not on others.
>
> Although I could use a if(0) construction (as is done in several o
Hi,
yesterday a patch of mine was committed to test more profile stuff from
kernel32. When I have a look now at test.winehq.org I see that some test(s)
crash on win98 but not on others.
Although I could use a if(0) construction (as is done in several other tests),
I'm wondering if we should
12 matches
Mail list logo
