Dmitry Timoshkov <dmi...@baikal.ru> writes: > Dmitry Timoshkov <dmi...@baikal.ru> wrote: > >> Alexandre Julliard <julli...@winehq.org> 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 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 and a passing its write end via shared memory >> seems like an obvious solution. Without a mutex client and server output is >> messed up under Windows. Redefining trace allows to write to the pipe in >> the server and synchronize server output on the client side. > > Did my explanation help with understanding the reasons behind the test > implementation details? > >> If you have a suggestion how to simplify all of this please let me know. > > It's pretty hard to make any progress without a reponse.
The easy way is to not print traces in the server, you shouldn't need that once your test is working. But I'm sure you can find other ways, like using a file in line-buffered mode or things like that. Think about it some more. -- Alexandre Julliard julli...@winehq.org
