Robert Reif wrote:
How about starting a blacklist framework. You could have
a table with the function that fails and some caps info that
identifies the driver. I would suspect that there is more
than one buggy driver out there. You could then just add
it's info to the table when it is found.
You
How about this?
regards,
Jakob
How about starting a blacklist framework. You could have
a table with the function that fails and some caps info that
identifies the driver. I would suspect that there is more
than one buggy driver out there. You could then just add
it's info to the table when i
Robert Reif <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Winetest has a "runningunderwine" report option. Running
>> it under Wine will be supported.
>
> winetest results from wine are not accepted by the website.
Yes they are. Just make dist.
> To be really useful as a developer tool, you would need wine
>
Robert Reif <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Isn't the point of winetest just to do a sanity check on the wine
> regression
> tests to make sure they are correct and valid. You don't need a 100%
> pass rate to prove that the tests are valid as long as you understand the
> reason for failure.
You ab
Winetest has a "runningunderwine" report option. Running it under Wine
will be
supported.
winetest results from wine are not accepted by the website.
To be really useful as a developer tool, you would need wine
specific information like the os/distribution version, sound library
type and version
Robert Reif wrote:
Removing the test so it passes on a Windows system with a real bug is
not the right thing to do for a wine regression test. The test is
there to
find bugs and that's what it did.
How about this?
regards,
Jakob
Index: dlls/winmm/tests/capture.c
==
Robert Reif wrote:
Removing the test so it passes on a Windows system with a real bug is
not the right thing to do for a wine regression test. The test is
there to
find bugs and that's what it did.
So, a driver blacklist is in order then?
regards,
Jakob Eriksson
Robert Reif wrote:
Jakob Eriksson wrote:
Robert Reif wrote:
Removing the test so it passes on a Windows system with a real bug is
not the right thing to do for a wine regression test. The test is
there to
find bugs and that's what it did.
So, a driver blacklist is in order then?
regards,
Jakob
Jakob Eriksson wrote:
Robert Reif wrote:
Removing the test so it passes on a Windows system with a real bug is
not the right thing to do for a wine regression test. The test is
there to
find bugs and that's what it did.
So, a driver blacklist is in order then?
regards,
Jakob Eriksson
Isn't the
Francois Gouget wrote:
On Thu, 4 Nov 2004, Robert Reif wrote:
Jakob Eriksson wrote:
As shown by:
http://test.winehq.org/data/200411021000/2000_IDWASEMPTY_1/winmm:capture.txt
capture.c:571:found 1 WaveIn devices
capture.c:302: 0: "Avance AC'97 Audio"
(\\?\pci#ven_1106&dev_3059&subsys_&re
On Thu, 4 Nov 2004, Robert Reif wrote:
Jakob Eriksson wrote:
As shown by:
http://test.winehq.org/data/200411021000/2000_IDWASEMPTY_1/winmm:capture.txt
capture.c:571:found 1 WaveIn devices
capture.c:302: 0: "Avance AC'97 Audio"
(\\?\pci#ven_1106&dev_3059&subsys_&rev_10#3&61aaa01&0&8d#{69
Jakob Eriksson wrote:
As shown by:
http://test.winehq.org/data/200411021000/2000_IDWASEMPTY_1/winmm:capture.txt
capture.c:571:found 1 WaveIn devices
capture.c:302: 0: "Avance AC'97 Audio"
(\\?\pci#ven_1106&dev_3059&subsys_&rev_10#3&61aaa01&0&8d#{6994ad04-93ef-11d0-a3cc-00a0c9223196}\wa
12 matches
Mail list logo
