Kees Cook wrote:
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 02:32:11PM +0900, Mike McCormack wrote:
The new patch looks good. I should have mentioned before that writing a
test case will help your patch be accepted. Did you have any test code
about that you could turn into a test case for your newly implemente
On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 10:29:37AM +0900, Mike McCormack wrote:
> The best way to write a test is to look at some of the test cases that
> are there already. Write and run the test under Windows, and make sure
> it passes on Windows first. The test is something like this:
Ah! Whoops, I didn't
Kees Cook wrote:
Sure, I can write something. I'll look around for docs on how to run
tests -- I didn't find that when I looked around this morning.
The best way to write a test is to look at some of the test cases that
are there already. Write and run the test under Windows, and make sure
it
Kees Cook wrote:
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 02:32:11PM +0900, Mike McCormack wrote:
The new patch looks good. I should have mentioned before that writing a
test case will help your patch be accepted. Did you have any test code
about that you could turn into a test case for your newly implemented
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 02:32:11PM +0900, Mike McCormack wrote:
> The new patch looks good. I should have mentioned before that writing a
> test case will help your patch be accepted. Did you have any test code
> about that you could turn into a test case for your newly implemented
> functions
Kees Cook wrote:
ChangeLog:
Black-box implementation of CryptProtectData/CryptUnprotectData.
Here is an updated patch with various recommendations implemented.
Hi Kees,
The new patch looks good. I should have mentioned before that writing a
test case will help your patch be accepted. Did you
