Re: [PATCH] kernel32: add condition variables prototypes and tests (2nd try)
Marcus Meissner <meissner(a)suse.de> wrote:
+ if (!pInitializeConditionVariable) { + skip("no condition variable support.\n"); + return; + }
Probably this should be a win_slip().
+ /* fprintf(stderr,"produced %d, c1 %d, c2 %d\n", totalproduced, cnt1, cnt2); */ + + /* The sleeps of the producer or consumer should not go above 10000, otherwise + * the implementation does not sleep correctly. */ + + /* fprintf(stderr,"producer sleep %d, consumer sleep %d\n", condvar_producer_sleepcnt, condvar_consumer_sleepcnt); */
There is trace() for debug output, it's shorter and more convenient IMHO. -- Dmitry.
On Sun, Sep 02, 2012 at 11:40:52PM +0900, Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
Marcus Meissner <meissner(a)suse.de> wrote:
+ if (!pInitializeConditionVariable) { + skip("no condition variable support.\n"); + return; + }
Probably this should be a win_slip().
The function exists only since Windows 7/Vista (not XP) and is not yet in Wine (and might take a while, as my time is limited currently and my knowledge of this specific function same). So I think "skip" is currently the right thing ;)
+ /* fprintf(stderr,"produced %d, c1 %d, c2 %d\n", totalproduced, cnt1, cnt2); */ + + /* The sleeps of the producer or consumer should not go above 10000, otherwise + * the implementation does not sleep correctly. */ + + /* fprintf(stderr,"producer sleep %d, consumer sleep %d\n", condvar_producer_sleepcnt, condvar_consumer_sleepcnt); */
There is trace() for debug output, it's shorter and more convenient IMHO.
True, I could do that, but its not relevant for the test as-is. Ciao, Marcus
Probably this should be a win_slip().
The function exists only since Windows 7/Vista (not XP) and is not yet in Wine (and might take a while, as my time is limited currently and my knowledge of this specific function same).
So I think "skip" is currently the right thing ;)
I think a "todo_wine win_skip" is appropriate for cases where Wine should have an implementation but doesn't yet.
On Sun, 2 Sep 2012, Vincent Povirk wrote:
Probably this should be a win_slip().
The function exists only since Windows 7/Vista (not XP) and is not yet in Wine (and might take a while, as my time is limited currently and my knowledge of this specific function same).
So I think "skip" is currently the right thing ;)
I think a "todo_wine win_skip" is appropriate for cases where Wine should have an implementation but doesn't yet.
Absolutely. With a plain 'skip' we won't know that we have to change the test when the implementation is added to Wine whereas the 'todo win_skip' will make that clear. -- Francois Gouget <fgouget(a)free.fr> http://fgouget.free.fr/ Computers are like airconditioners They stop working properly if you open WINDOWS
participants (4)
-
Dmitry Timoshkov -
Francois Gouget -
Marcus Meissner -
Vincent Povirk