Anything wrong with this patch?
On Sun, 29 May 2016, Francois Gouget wrote:
Signed-off-by: Francois Gouget fgouget@free.fr
dlls/ddraw/tests/d3d.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/dlls/ddraw/tests/d3d.c b/dlls/ddraw/tests/d3d.c index d877020..0e9a43b 100644 --- a/dlls/ddraw/tests/d3d.c +++ b/dlls/ddraw/tests/d3d.c @@ -1155,7 +1155,7 @@ static void Direct3D1Test(void) /* Interface consistency check. */ hr = IDirect3DDevice_GetDirect3D(Direct3DDevice1, &Direct3D_alt); ok(hr == D3D_OK, "IDirect3DDevice_GetDirect3D failed: %08x\n", hr);
- ok(Direct3D_alt == Direct3D1, "Direct3D1 struct pointer missmatch: %p != %p\n", Direct3D_alt, Direct3D1);
ok(Direct3D_alt == Direct3D1, "Direct3D1 struct pointer mismatch: %p != %p\n", Direct3D_alt, Direct3D1); IDirect3D_Release(Direct3D_alt);
memset(&desc, 0, sizeof(desc));
-- 2.8.1
On 06/11/2016 01:38 PM, Francois Gouget wrote:
Anything wrong with this patch?
My guess it needs the standard fix aka move the respective tests to ddraw[1247].c
On Sun, 29 May 2016, Francois Gouget wrote:
Signed-off-by: Francois Gouget fgouget@free.fr
dlls/ddraw/tests/d3d.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/dlls/ddraw/tests/d3d.c b/dlls/ddraw/tests/d3d.c index d877020..0e9a43b 100644 --- a/dlls/ddraw/tests/d3d.c +++ b/dlls/ddraw/tests/d3d.c @@ -1155,7 +1155,7 @@ static void Direct3D1Test(void) /* Interface consistency check. */ hr = IDirect3DDevice_GetDirect3D(Direct3DDevice1, &Direct3D_alt); ok(hr == D3D_OK, "IDirect3DDevice_GetDirect3D failed: %08x\n", hr);
- ok(Direct3D_alt == Direct3D1, "Direct3D1 struct pointer missmatch: %p != %p\n", Direct3D_alt, Direct3D1);
ok(Direct3D_alt == Direct3D1, "Direct3D1 struct pointer mismatch: %p != %p\n", Direct3D_alt, Direct3D1); IDirect3D_Release(Direct3D_alt);
memset(&desc, 0, sizeof(desc));
-- 2.8.1
bye michael
On Mon, 13 Jun 2016, Michael Stefaniuc wrote:
On 06/11/2016 01:38 PM, Francois Gouget wrote:
Anything wrong with this patch?
My guess it needs the standard fix aka move the respective tests to ddraw[1247].c
I'd argue to the contrary that fixing a spelling error before it is duplicated in four different tests would be a pretty good idea.
- ok(Direct3D_alt == Direct3D1, "Direct3D1 struct pointer missmatch: %p != %p\n", Direct3D_alt, Direct3D1);
- ok(Direct3D_alt == Direct3D1, "Direct3D1 struct pointer mismatch: %p != %p\n", Direct3D_alt, Direct3D1);
On 06/13/2016 01:20 PM, Francois Gouget wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jun 2016, Michael Stefaniuc wrote:
On 06/11/2016 01:38 PM, Francois Gouget wrote:
Anything wrong with this patch?
My guess it needs the standard fix aka move the respective tests to ddraw[1247].c
I'd argue to the contrary that fixing a spelling error before it is duplicated in four different tests would be a pretty good idea.
Do you know that for sure? The test might go away. The work involved isn't just a copy and paste move but also involves cleanups.
Oh, and I don't argue one way or the other. Just stating the fact that Henri prefers to not waste time in papering over the fact that that code needs to be moved and cleaned up. And he hopes that somebody will be motivated to do it.
- ok(Direct3D_alt == Direct3D1, "Direct3D1 struct pointer missmatch: %p != %p\n", Direct3D_alt, Direct3D1);
- ok(Direct3D_alt == Direct3D1, "Direct3D1 struct pointer mismatch: %p != %p\n", Direct3D_alt, Direct3D1);
bye michael
On 13 June 2016 at 13:39, Michael Stefaniuc mstefani@redhat.com wrote:
On 06/13/2016 01:20 PM, Francois Gouget wrote:
I'd argue to the contrary that fixing a spelling error before it is duplicated in four different tests would be a pretty good idea.
Do you know that for sure? The test might go away. The work involved isn't just a copy and paste move but also involves cleanups.
Yeah, that line is very unlikely to survive a rewrite.
-
Francois Gouget -
Henri Verbeet -
Michael Stefaniuc