[PATCH] rpcrt4/tests: Run RPC tests in both mixed and fully interpreted mode.

[Jacek Caban]

Signed-off-by: Jacek Caban <jacek(a)codeweavers.com>
---
  dlls/rpcrt4/tests/Makefile.in       |   6 +-
  dlls/rpcrt4/tests/server.c          | 934 ++++++++++++++++++++++++----
  dlls/rpcrt4/tests/server.idl        | 228 ++++---
  dlls/rpcrt4/tests/server_interp.idl |  25 +
  4 files changed, 965 insertions(+), 228 deletions(-)
  create mode 100644 dlls/rpcrt4/tests/server_interp.idl

[Dmitry Timoshkov]

Jacek Caban <jacek(a)codeweavers.com> wrote:
> +static int __cdecl (*int_return)(void);
> +static int __cdecl (*square)(int x);
> +static int __cdecl (*sum)(int x, int y);
> +static signed char __cdecl (*sum_char)(signed char x, signed char y);
> +static short __cdecl (*sum_short)(short x, short y);
> ...

__cdecl should be inside of parentheses so that the calling convention
belongs to the function and not to the return type, otherwise MSVC would
fail to compile such declarations.

-- 
Dmitry.

[Jacek Caban]

On 1/23/19 1:35 PM, Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
> Jacek Caban <jacek(a)codeweavers.com> wrote:
> > +static int __cdecl (*int_return)(void);
> > +static int __cdecl (*square)(int x);
> > +static int __cdecl (*sum)(int x, int y);
> > +static signed char __cdecl (*sum_char)(signed char x, signed char y);
> > +static short __cdecl (*sum_short)(short x, short y);
> > ...
>
> __cdecl should be inside of parentheses so that the calling convention
> belongs to the function and not to the return type, otherwise MSVC would
> fail to compile such declarations.

Good catch, I will send a new patch. Ideally it would use typeof(), but 
it's also problematic for MSVC...


Thanks,

Jacek

[Zebediah Figura]

On 1/23/19 5:37 AM, Jacek Caban wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Jacek Caban <jacek(a)codeweavers.com>
> ---
>   dlls/rpcrt4/tests/Makefile.in       |   6 +-
>   dlls/rpcrt4/tests/server.c          | 934 ++++++++++++++++++++++++----
>   dlls/rpcrt4/tests/server.idl        | 228 ++++---
>   dlls/rpcrt4/tests/server_interp.idl |  25 +
>   4 files changed, 965 insertions(+), 228 deletions(-)
>   create mode 100644 dlls/rpcrt4/tests/server_interp.idl

This seems like a great idea; I'm wondering if there are perhaps simpler 
ways of achieving it.

In particular it's not obvious to me that we need to duplicate the 
server methods. Could we leave them as is and then instead use something 
like this:

server_EXTRAIDLFLAGS = -Os --prefix-client=mixed_
server_interp_EXTRAIDLFLAGS = -Oicf --prefix-client=interp_

[Jacek Caban]

Hi Zebediah,

On 1/23/19 7:02 PM, Zebediah Figura wrote:
> On 1/23/19 5:37 AM, Jacek Caban wrote:
> > Signed-off-by: Jacek Caban <jacek(a)codeweavers.com>
> > ---
> >   dlls/rpcrt4/tests/Makefile.in       |   6 +-
> >   dlls/rpcrt4/tests/server.c          | 934 ++++++++++++++++++++++++----
> >   dlls/rpcrt4/tests/server.idl        | 228 ++++---
> >   dlls/rpcrt4/tests/server_interp.idl |  25 +
> >   4 files changed, 965 insertions(+), 228 deletions(-)
> >   create mode 100644 dlls/rpcrt4/tests/server_interp.idl
>
> This seems like a great idea; I'm wondering if there are perhaps 
> simpler ways of achieving it.
>
> In particular it's not obvious to me that we need to duplicate the 
> server methods. Could we leave them as is and then instead use 
> something like this:
>
> server_EXTRAIDLFLAGS = -Os --prefix-client=mixed_
> server_interp_EXTRAIDLFLAGS = -Oicf --prefix-client=interp_

That sounds like a good idea. I will give it a try.


Thanks,

Jacek