Jacek Caban jacek@codeweavers.com writes:
try2: Using GetTickCount64() for timestamps
dlls/urlmon/tests/protocol.c | 2 +- dlls/urlmon/tests/url.c | 20 +- dlls/wininet/http.c | 567 ++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------ dlls/wininet/internet.c | 2 +- dlls/wininet/internet.h | 42 +++- dlls/wininet/netconnection.c | 138 ++++------- dlls/wininet/tests/http.c | 32 +-- 7 files changed, 427 insertions(+), 376 deletions(-)
It doesn't work here:
../../../tools/runtest -q -P wine -M wininet.dll -T ../../.. -p wininet_test.exe.so http.c && touch http.ok http.c:2621: Test failed: expected 1 retrievals, got 0 http.c:2628: Test failed: count was wrong http.c:2629: Test failed: http data wrong http.c:2649: Test succeeded inside todo block: expected 1 retrievals make: *** [http.ok] Error 4
On 05/04/11 16:07, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
Jacek Caban jacek@codeweavers.com writes:
try2: Using GetTickCount64() for timestamps
dlls/urlmon/tests/protocol.c | 2 +- dlls/urlmon/tests/url.c | 20 +- dlls/wininet/http.c | 567 ++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------ dlls/wininet/internet.c | 2 +- dlls/wininet/internet.h | 42 +++- dlls/wininet/netconnection.c | 138 ++++------- dlls/wininet/tests/http.c | 32 +-- 7 files changed, 427 insertions(+), 376 deletions(-)
It doesn't work here:
../../../tools/runtest -q -P wine -M wininet.dll -T ../../.. -p wininet_test.exe.so http.c && touch http.ok http.c:2621: Test failed: expected 1 retrievals, got 0 http.c:2628: Test failed: count was wrong http.c:2629: Test failed: http data wrong http.c:2649: Test succeeded inside todo block: expected 1 retrievals make: *** [http.ok] Error 4
That's an already existing race in tests. It fails on Windows as well: http://test.winehq.org/data/a343c1fbd0f37a5cadd98698ae5d580727ddf0c7/2003_fg... I've seen it here and my patch seems to make is more likely to fail. I plan fixing it, but, as it's not new, so I think it shouldn't block committing my patch.
Jacek
Jacek Caban jacek@codeweavers.com writes:
That's an already existing race in tests. It fails on Windows as well: http://test.winehq.org/data/a343c1fbd0f37a5cadd98698ae5d580727ddf0c7/2003_fg... I've seen it here and my patch seems to make is more likely to fail. I plan fixing it, but, as it's not new, so I think it shouldn't block committing my patch.
Maybe it's not new, but it's much worse. That failure used to happen maybe at most once a week here, but now it's failing 9 times out of 10. I really don't want to have to always run make test in a loop until it works.
On 5/4/11 8:05 PM, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
Jacek Cabanjacek@codeweavers.com writes:
That's an already existing race in tests. It fails on Windows as well: http://test.winehq.org/data/a343c1fbd0f37a5cadd98698ae5d580727ddf0c7/2003_fg... I've seen it here and my patch seems to make is more likely to fail. I plan fixing it, but, as it's not new, so I think it shouldn't block committing my patch.
Maybe it's not new, but it's much worse. That failure used to happen maybe at most once a week here, but now it's failing 9 times out of 10. I really don't want to have to always run make test in a loop until it works.
Oh, didn't expect it to be that bad, it fails about 1 out of 5 times here. I will fix the test first then.
Jacek
-
Alexandre Julliard -
Jacek Caban