Mike Kaplinskiy wrote:
This tests the following AcceptEx scenario: WSAAccept->CF_DEFER->AcceptEx Windows seems to return the deferred socket with AcceptEx (verified on XP & 2K3).
Mike.
Hi Mike,
These new tests fail on all NT4 boxes (some 6 and 1 has 4000+ failures) and what looks like to be all Windows x64_64 systems. The strange thing (or maybe not) is that the errors are the same on all of these (one box has 4000+ failures but still has those same 6).
See:
http://test.winehq.org/data/tests/ws2_32:sock.html
Could you have a look?
I can do some tests if necessary on NT4, I don't have a Windows x86_64 system however.
Paul,
Does the attached fix test failures on at least NT4? The 4000 test failures is ok, it's just 3999 of the same failure. The failures are the same because of a mistake on my part.
I didn't get a chance to test this since my virtualbox is down until a 2.6.31-compatible version of their kernel module is out.
Mike.
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 3:40 AM, Paul Vrienspaul.vriens.wine@gmail.com wrote:
Mike Kaplinskiy wrote:
This tests the following AcceptEx scenario: WSAAccept->CF_DEFER->AcceptEx Windows seems to return the deferred socket with AcceptEx (verified on XP & 2K3).
Mike.
Hi Mike,
These new tests fail on all NT4 boxes (some 6 and 1 has 4000+ failures) and what looks like to be all Windows x64_64 systems. The strange thing (or maybe not) is that the errors are the same on all of these (one box has 4000+ failures but still has those same 6).
See:
http://test.winehq.org/data/tests/ws2_32:sock.html
Could you have a look?
I can do some tests if necessary on NT4, I don't have a Windows x86_64 system however.
-- Cheers,
Paul.
Mike Kaplinskiy wrote:
Paul,
Does the attached fix test failures on at least NT4? The 4000 test failures is ok, it's just 3999 of the same failure. The failures are the same because of a mistake on my part.
I didn't get a chance to test this since my virtualbox is down until a 2.6.31-compatible version of their kernel module is out.
Mike.
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 3:40 AM, Paul Vrienspaul.vriens.wine@gmail.com wrote:
Mike Kaplinskiy wrote:
This tests the following AcceptEx scenario: WSAAccept->CF_DEFER->AcceptEx Windows seems to return the deferred socket with AcceptEx (verified on XP & 2K3).
Mike.
Hi Mike,
These new tests fail on all NT4 boxes (some 6 and 1 has 4000+ failures) and what looks like to be all Windows x64_64 systems. The strange thing (or maybe not) is that the errors are the same on all of these (one box has 4000+ failures but still has those same 6).
See:
http://test.winehq.org/data/tests/ws2_32:sock.html
Could you have a look?
I can do some tests if necessary on NT4, I don't have a Windows x86_64 system however.
-- Cheers,
Paul.
This is what I now get on NT4:
..... sock.c:2819: Test failed: Did not get both connections, got 1 sock.c:2867: Test failed: bytesReturned isn't supposed to be 1 sock: 441754 tests executed (0 marked as todo, 2 failures), 4 skipped.
Paul (and anyone who can test on x86_64):
Can you confirm that the new patch gives no failures?
Mike.
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 2:02 AM, Paul Vrienspaul.vriens.wine@gmail.com wrote:
Mike Kaplinskiy wrote:
Paul,
Does the attached fix test failures on at least NT4? The 4000 test failures is ok, it's just 3999 of the same failure. The failures are the same because of a mistake on my part.
I didn't get a chance to test this since my virtualbox is down until a 2.6.31-compatible version of their kernel module is out.
Mike.
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 3:40 AM, Paul Vrienspaul.vriens.wine@gmail.com wrote:
Mike Kaplinskiy wrote:
This tests the following AcceptEx scenario: WSAAccept->CF_DEFER->AcceptEx Windows seems to return the deferred socket with AcceptEx (verified on XP & 2K3).
Mike.
Hi Mike,
These new tests fail on all NT4 boxes (some 6 and 1 has 4000+ failures) and what looks like to be all Windows x64_64 systems. The strange thing (or maybe not) is that the errors are the same on all of these (one box has 4000+ failures but still has those same 6).
See:
http://test.winehq.org/data/tests/ws2_32:sock.html
Could you have a look?
I can do some tests if necessary on NT4, I don't have a Windows x86_64 system however.
-- Cheers,
Paul.
This is what I now get on NT4:
..... sock.c:2819: Test failed: Did not get both connections, got 1 sock.c:2867: Test failed: bytesReturned isn't supposed to be 1 sock: 441754 tests executed (0 marked as todo, 2 failures), 4 skipped.
-- Cheers,
Paul.
Mike Kaplinskiy wrote:
Paul (and anyone who can test on x86_64):
Can you confirm that the new patch gives no failures?
Mike.
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 2:02 AM, Paul Vrienspaul.vriens.wine@gmail.com wrote:
Mike Kaplinskiy wrote:
Paul,
Does the attached fix test failures on at least NT4? The 4000 test failures is ok, it's just 3999 of the same failure. The failures are the same because of a mistake on my part.
I didn't get a chance to test this since my virtualbox is down until a 2.6.31-compatible version of their kernel module is out.
Mike.
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 3:40 AM, Paul Vrienspaul.vriens.wine@gmail.com wrote:
Mike Kaplinskiy wrote:
This tests the following AcceptEx scenario: WSAAccept->CF_DEFER->AcceptEx Windows seems to return the deferred socket with AcceptEx (verified on XP & 2K3).
Mike.
Hi Mike,
These new tests fail on all NT4 boxes (some 6 and 1 has 4000+ failures) and what looks like to be all Windows x64_64 systems. The strange thing (or maybe not) is that the errors are the same on all of these (one box has 4000+ failures but still has those same 6).
See:
http://test.winehq.org/data/tests/ws2_32:sock.html
Could you have a look?
I can do some tests if necessary on NT4, I don't have a Windows x86_64 system however.
-- Cheers,
Paul.
This is what I now get on NT4:
..... sock.c:2819: Test failed: Did not get both connections, got 1 sock.c:2867: Test failed: bytesReturned isn't supposed to be 1 sock: 441754 tests executed (0 marked as todo, 2 failures), 4 skipped.
-- Cheers,
Paul.
Hi Mike,
No failures on NT4 here with this one.
Paul,
I don't like NT4 anymore. We're breaking up.
Does the attached patch fix the latest failures (not counting the build warnings)?
Mike.
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 7:05 AM, Paul Vrienspaul.vriens.wine@gmail.com wrote:
Mike Kaplinskiy wrote:
Paul (and anyone who can test on x86_64):
Can you confirm that the new patch gives no failures?
Mike.
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 2:02 AM, Paul Vrienspaul.vriens.wine@gmail.com wrote:
Mike Kaplinskiy wrote:
Paul,
Does the attached fix test failures on at least NT4? The 4000 test failures is ok, it's just 3999 of the same failure. The failures are the same because of a mistake on my part.
I didn't get a chance to test this since my virtualbox is down until a 2.6.31-compatible version of their kernel module is out.
Mike.
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 3:40 AM, Paul Vrienspaul.vriens.wine@gmail.com wrote:
Mike Kaplinskiy wrote:
This tests the following AcceptEx scenario: WSAAccept->CF_DEFER->AcceptEx Windows seems to return the deferred socket with AcceptEx (verified on XP & 2K3).
Mike.
Hi Mike,
These new tests fail on all NT4 boxes (some 6 and 1 has 4000+ failures) and what looks like to be all Windows x64_64 systems. The strange thing (or maybe not) is that the errors are the same on all of these (one box has 4000+ failures but still has those same 6).
See:
http://test.winehq.org/data/tests/ws2_32:sock.html
Could you have a look?
I can do some tests if necessary on NT4, I don't have a Windows x86_64 system however.
-- Cheers,
Paul.
This is what I now get on NT4:
..... sock.c:2819: Test failed: Did not get both connections, got 1 sock.c:2867: Test failed: bytesReturned isn't supposed to be 1 sock: 441754 tests executed (0 marked as todo, 2 failures), 4 skipped.
-- Cheers,
Paul.
Hi Mike,
No failures on NT4 here with this one.
-- Cheers,
Paul.
Mike Kaplinskiy wrote:
Paul,
I don't like NT4 anymore. We're breaking up.
Does the attached patch fix the latest failures (not counting the build warnings)?
Mike.
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 7:05 AM, Paul Vrienspaul.vriens.wine@gmail.com wrote:
Mike Kaplinskiy wrote:
Paul (and anyone who can test on x86_64):
Can you confirm that the new patch gives no failures?
Mike.
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 2:02 AM, Paul Vrienspaul.vriens.wine@gmail.com wrote:
Mike Kaplinskiy wrote:
Paul,
Does the attached fix test failures on at least NT4? The 4000 test failures is ok, it's just 3999 of the same failure. The failures are the same because of a mistake on my part.
I didn't get a chance to test this since my virtualbox is down until a 2.6.31-compatible version of their kernel module is out.
Mike.
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 3:40 AM, Paul Vrienspaul.vriens.wine@gmail.com wrote:
Mike Kaplinskiy wrote: > This tests the following AcceptEx scenario: > WSAAccept->CF_DEFER->AcceptEx > Windows seems to return the deferred socket with AcceptEx (verified on > XP & 2K3). > > Mike. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Hi Mike,
These new tests fail on all NT4 boxes (some 6 and 1 has 4000+ failures) and what looks like to be all Windows x64_64 systems. The strange thing (or maybe not) is that the errors are the same on all of these (one box has 4000+ failures but still has those same 6).
See:
http://test.winehq.org/data/tests/ws2_32:sock.html
Could you have a look?
I can do some tests if necessary on NT4, I don't have a Windows x86_64 system however.
-- Cheers,
Paul.
This is what I now get on NT4:
..... sock.c:2819: Test failed: Did not get both connections, got 1 sock.c:2867: Test failed: bytesReturned isn't supposed to be 1 sock: 441754 tests executed (0 marked as todo, 2 failures), 4 skipped.
-- Cheers,
Paul.
Hi Mike,
No failures on NT4 here with this one.
-- Cheers,
Paul.
Got a compile warning:
sock.c:2784: warning: passing argument 1 of 'CancelIo' makes pointer from integer without a cast
Still one failure with this one but that's because you reversed the return value checking of CancelIo.
So this does the trick for me (fixed warning and failure):
bret = CancelIo((HANDLE)listener); ok(bret, "Failed to cancel failed test. Bailing...\n"); if (!bret) return;
-
Mike Kaplinskiy -
Paul Vriens