Nov. 22, 2009
6:02 p.m.
On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 12:00 PM, Charles Davis <cdavis(a)mymail.mines.edu> wrote: > Austin English wrote: >> On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 11:15 PM, Charles Davis <cdavis(a)mymail.mines.edu> wrote: >>> Dmitry Timoshkov wrote: >>>> "Charles Davis" <cdavis(a)mymail.mines.edu> wrote: >>>> >>>>>> You forgot to remove if (1). >>>>>> >>>>> It goes away in patch #3. I thought I already had this discussion with >>>>> Paul. >>>>> >>>>> There's a reason it's there. EMF_BITBLT contains two BitBlt() records, >>>>> but the EMF we're comparing it to only has one. That's because one of >>>>> them is if(0)'d out because it crashes on Wine. So, if we try to compare >>>>> the EMF we produced to the EMF we expect, it will fail. Last I checked, >>>>> Alexandre doesn't like it when tests fail. All tests must pass on his >>>>> box. >>>> There are 2 solutions for that: >>>> 1. use todo_wine in the test, and remove it in a patch with the fix >>> The test will fail on Windows if I do that. >> >> That won't affect windows. It will only fail on wine if it passes. >> > You don't understand. The expected EMF bits contain TWO BitBlt() > records, but the EMF produced by the test contains only one. It will > contain only one on both Wine and Windows, because one of the calls to > BitBlt() is if(0)'d out. So the test will fail on Windows if the call to > compare_emf_bits() is marked todo_wine. Ah, my mistake. > Oh, and you didn't reply to all. Was that intentional? Yes, didn't think everyone needed to know what todo_wine did ;-). -- -Austin