Francois Gouget wrote:
On Sun, 25 Apr 2004, Robert Reif wrote:
[...]
How about something like this:
Adds test for illegal bits per sample.
Fixes format printing.
Looks ok though if we keep the 2MHz etst then we should investigate
what's goign on on Windows in more details.
Since we are
On Sun, 25 Apr 2004, Robert Reif wrote:
[...]
> How about something like this:
>
> Adds test for illegal bits per sample.
> Fixes format printing.
Looks ok though if we keep the 2MHz etst then we should investigate
what's goign on on Windows in more details.
> Since we are opening the device in
Francois Gouget wrote:
On Sun, 25 Apr 2004, Robert Reif wrote:
Francois Gouget wrote:
Some Windows sound drivers allow wild frequencies such as the 2MHz
one.
Is this a windows driver bug? Is the test really valid and it's just
finding a real bug in the windows driver for that s
On Sun, 25 Apr 2004, Robert Reif wrote:
> Francois Gouget wrote:
>
> >Some Windows sound drivers allow wild frequencies such as the 2MHz
> > one.
> >
> Is this a windows driver bug? Is the test really valid and it's just
> finding a real bug in the windows driver for that specific sound card?
Francois Gouget wrote:
Some Windows sound drivers allow wild frequencies such as the 2MHz
one.
Is this a windows driver bug? Is the test really valid and it's just
finding a
real bug in the windows driver for that specific sound card?
I know it makes the test fail on bad windows drivers b
