Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> If it's a test app meant to investigate the behavior, that's fine, but
> then there's no reason to put it in the test suite.
>
> Just use it to figure out the behavior, and then write a proper test
> that checks for that behavior using ok() and the like. At that point
Dmitry Timoshkov writes:
> Alexandre Julliard wrote:
>
>> >> Launching the server in responce to say CoCreateInstance is out of our
>> >> control, happens behind the scene, and the server runs in its own console,
>> >> so it's impossible make a simple redirection by passing in/out handles to
>>
Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> >> Launching the server in responce to say CoCreateInstance is out of our
> >> control, happens behind the scene, and the server runs in its own console,
> >> so it's impossible make a simple redirection by passing in/out handles to
> >> CreateProcess. So using a pipe
Dmitry Timoshkov writes:
> Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
>
>> Alexandre Julliard wrote:
>>
>> > It seems to be awfully complicated. In particular I don't think you need
>> > a shared mapping plus a pipe plus a mutex just to log tracing
>> > output. Redefining standard macros is also not a good idea.
Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
> Alexandre Julliard wrote:
>
> > It seems to be awfully complicated. In particular I don't think you need
> > a shared mapping plus a pipe plus a mutex just to log tracing
> > output. Redefining standard macros is also not a good idea.
>
> Launching the server in respo
Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> It seems to be awfully complicated. In particular I don't think you need
> a shared mapping plus a pipe plus a mutex just to log tracing
> output. Redefining standard macros is also not a good idea.
Launching the server in responce to say CoCreateInstance is out of ou
Dmitry Timoshkov writes:
> Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
>
>> With minor clean ups and with increased timeout to wait for server
>> termination
>> to please some really slow VMs (that allowed to remove broken() statements).
>
> It would be helpful to provide some feedback and explain the 'pending' st
Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
> With minor clean ups and with increased timeout to wait for server termination
> to please some really slow VMs (that allowed to remove broken() statements).
It would be helpful to provide some feedback and explain the 'pending' state
of the patch which adds a test.
--
