[PATCH 2/2] ws2_32/tests: Test with less socket pairs

[André Hentschel]

about 400 lines less in output

Signed-off-by: André Hentschel 
---
 dlls/ws2_32/tests/sock.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/dlls/ws2_32/tests/sock.c b/dlls/ws2_32/tests/sock.c
index 3bc3d66..17b59a4 100644
--- a/dlls/ws2_32/tests/sock.c
+++ b/dlls/ws2_32/tests/sock.c
@@ -1181,7 +1181,7 @@ static void test_WithWSAStartup(void)
     struct
     {
         SOCKET src, dst, dup_src, dup_dst;
-    } pairs[128];
+    } pairs[32];
     DWORD error;

res = WSAStartup( version, &data );

On 02/02/2018 01:35 PM, André Hentschel wrote:
> about 400 lines less in output
> Signed-off-by: André Hentschel
>
> dlls/ws2_32/tests/sock.c | 2 +-
>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/dlls/ws2_32/tests/sock.c b/dlls/ws2_32/tests/sock.c
> index 3bc3d66..17b59a4 100644
> --- a/dlls/ws2_32/tests/sock.c
> +++ b/dlls/ws2_32/tests/sock.c
> @@ -1181,7 +1181,7 @@ static void test_WithWSAStartup(void)
>       struct
>       {
>           SOCKET src, dst, dup_src, dup_dst;
> - } pairs[128];
> -
>
> } pairs[32];
>  DWORD error;
>
> res = WSAStartup( version, &data );

Is there any point in testing more than one socket pair?

[André Hentschel]

Am 03.02.2018 um 18:52 schrieb [e-mail]:
> On 02/02/2018 01:35 PM, André Hentschel wrote:
> > about 400 lines less in output
> > Signed-off-by: André Hentschel
> >
> > dlls/ws2_32/tests/sock.c | 2 +-
> >   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/dlls/ws2_32/tests/sock.c b/dlls/ws2_32/tests/sock.c
> > index 3bc3d66..17b59a4 100644
> > --- a/dlls/ws2_32/tests/sock.c
> > +++ b/dlls/ws2_32/tests/sock.c
> > @@ -1181,7 +1181,7 @@ static void test_WithWSAStartup(void)
> >       struct
> >       {
> >           SOCKET src, dst, dup_src, dup_dst;
> > -    } pairs[128];
> > +    } pairs[32];
> >       DWORD error;
> >         res = WSAStartup( version, &data );
>
> Is there any point in testing more than one socket pair?

Not sure, I'm not that familiar with the test, but maybe there's a reason for initial picking 128...