Detlef Riekenberg wine.dev@web.de writes:
Changelog:
- ntdll/tests: Load test on win95 again
(kernel32,CreateWaitableTimerA not present)
A better fix would be to avoid the call completely, the ntdll tests shouldn't need to use kernel32 functions.
Am Dienstag, den 10.01.2006, 20:14 +0100 schrieb Alexandre Julliard:
- ntdll/tests: Load test on win95 again
(kernel32,CreateWaitableTimerA not present)
A better fix would be to avoid the call completely, the ntdll tests shouldn't need to use kernel32 functions.
I asked the Author of this Tests (Vitaliy) for Help: --- cut --- winspool: ntdll_test.exe does not load on win95 and NT3.51, because CreateWaitableTimerA does not exist vitamin: ok, when you fixed them did you ran them on win9x? winspool: with my Patch, the tests load and some tests work on win9x (generated, and a little more) vitamin: ;-) vitamin: useless anyway winspool:is it possible to move the affected Tests somewhere in kernel32/tests/ vitamin: no, vitamin: those tests _have to be there_ vitamin: That's what it tests (OM) --- cut ---
Removing the kernel32-functions out of ntdll_tests.exe will result in moving nearly the complete OM-test to "kernel32/tests", but the OM is located in ntdll. This does not match. Any Hints?
Since NT3.51 and Win95 are unable to load the current "ntdll_test.exe", are we in the Situation to drop WRT-Support for NT3.x and Win95?
While trying to run "winetest-latest.exe", i found several failing Tests (no counter or "failed" on the WRT-Result-Page). I picked this one as a start.
Tuesday, January 10, 2006, 4:00:51 PM, Detlef Riekenberg wrote:
Am Dienstag, den 10.01.2006, 20:14 +0100 schrieb Alexandre Julliard:
- ntdll/tests: Load test on win95 again
(kernel32,CreateWaitableTimerA not present)
A better fix would be to avoid the call completely, the ntdll tests shouldn't need to use kernel32 functions.
[snip]
Removing the kernel32-functions out of ntdll_tests.exe will result in moving nearly the complete OM-test to "kernel32/tests", but the OM is located in ntdll. This does not match.
Those tests cover kernel32.dll, ntdll and OM in the wineserver. So I've put them in the middle <g>. They could be moved to kernel, but then it will import same number of ntdll functions. So I don't really see a reason to move them around. But rather keep all the object manager specific tests in the one place
Since NT3.51 and Win95 are unable to load the current "ntdll_test.exe", are we in the Situation to drop WRT-Support for NT3.x and Win95?
Why? ntdll tests just won't load. But everything else will work. I'm not really sure how usefull those results will be anyway.
Vitaliy
Vitaliy Margolen wine-devel@kievinfo.com writes:
Those tests cover kernel32.dll, ntdll and OM in the wineserver. So I've put them in the middle <g>. They could be moved to kernel, but then it will import same number of ntdll functions. So I don't really see a reason to move them around. But rather keep all the object manager specific tests in the one place
The object manager can be tested by using only ntdll functions, and that can be done in ntdll. Then you can have tests for the kernel32 functions in a kernel32 test. This way they will also be tested on win9x, which isn't the case if you mix everything together.
Wednesday, January 11, 2006, 3:46:15 AM, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
Vitaliy Margolen wine-devel@kievinfo.com writes:
Those tests cover kernel32.dll, ntdll and OM in the wineserver. So I've put them in the middle <g>. They could be moved to kernel, but then it will import same number of ntdll functions. So I don't really see a reason to move them around. But rather keep all the object manager specific tests in the one place
The object manager can be tested by using only ntdll functions, and that can be done in ntdll. Then you can have tests for the kernel32 functions in a kernel32 test. This way they will also be tested on win9x, which isn't the case if you mix everything together.
The problem with those particular tests is that they test one particular thing (the need of OBJ_OPENIF flag in kernel and proper errors returned on name collisions) and we need information from all three places. I don't see how else we can test this without the use of both ntdll & kernel32 functions in one place. Which makes it rather hard to test on anything but winNT.
On the other hand. If we don't care about what flags kernel32 use calling ntdll, we can just test creation of the named object with the same name in kernel32. And see what kind of errors we'll get there.
Vitaliy.
Vitaliy Margolen wine-devel@kievinfo.com writes:
On the other hand. If we don't care about what flags kernel32 use calling ntdll, we can just test creation of the named object with the same name in kernel32. And see what kind of errors we'll get there.
We clearly don't care what flags kernel32 uses to call ntdll, or if it even calls ntdll at all (it obviously doesn't on win9x), all we care about in the tests is the external behavior.
-
Alexandre Julliard -
Detlef Riekenberg -
Vitaliy Margolen