Re: [17/23] wined3d: Implement return instruction.

[Andrew Wesie]

Is the correct thing to add a test to dlls/d3d11/tests/d3d11.c that
illustrates the bug and shows that the patch fixes the bug?

-Andrew

On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 5:07 PM, Marvin  wrote:
> Thank you for your contribution to Wine!
>
> This is an automated notification to let you know that your patch has
> been reviewed and its status set to "Rejected".
>
> This means that the patch has been rejected by a reviewer. You should
> have received a mail explaining why it was rejected. You need to fix
> the issue and resend the patch, or if you are convinced that your
> patch is good as is, you should reply to the rejection message with
> your counterarguments.
>
> If you do not understand the reason for this status, disagree with our
> assessment, or are simply not sure how to proceed next, please ask for
> clarification by replying to this email.

[17/23] wined3d: Implement return instruction.

[Józef Kucia]

For this patch, the most important thing is to fix test failures
pointed out by Matteo.

On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 8:41 PM, Andrew Wesie  wrote:
> Is the correct thing to add a test to dlls/d3d11/tests/d3d11.c that
> illustrates the bug and shows that the patch fixes the bug?

Yes, a test case is always welcome. If a test can be expressed in
D3D10 API we also tend to duplicate the test and put it in
dlls/d3d10core/tests/.  FWIW, I've prepared a simple test case for
this instruction. You can send it with your patch if you want. It
exercises the ret instruction only in pixel shaders, but it's better
than not having a test at all.