On 7/24/07, Matt Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
At this point in the test suite, SetThreadPriority has already been
tested, so this would be duplicating the existing test. I'd be happy
to add this in as well, but it seems unnecessary.
Fair enough :) By the way, make sure to bottom-post on t
At this point in the test suite, SetThreadPriority has already been
tested, so this would be duplicating the existing test. I'd be happy
to add this in as well, but it seems unnecessary.
On 7/24/07, James Hawkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 7/24/07, Matt Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Refo
On 7/24/07, Matt Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Reformatted tests to address James' email
+ SetThreadPriority(curthread,min_priority);
+ SetLastError(0xdeadbeef);
+ result = SetThreadPriority(curthread,min_priority-1);
Is there a reason you don't check the result from the first call t
On 7/24/07, Matt Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 7/24/07, Matt Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Correctly checks return code of SetThreadPriority before checking
> error (address comment by Alexandre)
>
+ SetThreadPriority(curthread,min_priority);
+ result = SetThreadPriority(curthre
"Matt Jones" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Any chance anyone could look over this?
You need to test the return value of the functions before you can
check the last error code.
--
Alexandre Julliard
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Any chance anyone could look over this?
-- Forwarded message --
From: Matt Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Jul 20, 2007 11:32 AM
Subject: kernel32: Additional SetThreadPriorityTest (Try 4)
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Add test for correct error value as per suggestion from Ale
Could someone please review this?
Thank you,
Matt
On 7/17/07, Matt Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
SetThreadPriority should maintain the current thread priority if an
invalid thread priority number is passed in.
Now uses todo_wine flag
