Am Donnerstag, 29. August 2013, 10:47:46 schrieb Dmitry Timoshkov:
> Wolfgang Walter wrote:
> > I think that happens:
> >
> > * application writes data to com port.
> > * all is written, serial buffer is empty
> > * application calls WaitCommEvent()
> > * wait_on() is called
> > * wait_on() call
Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
> Wolfgang Walter wrote:
>
> > I think that happens:
> >
> > * application writes data to com port.
> > * all is written, serial buffer is empty
> > * application calls WaitCommEvent()
> > * wait_on() is called
> > * wait_on() calls get_irq_info()
> > * get_irq_info()
Wolfgang Walter wrote:
> I think that happens:
>
> * application writes data to com port.
> * all is written, serial buffer is empty
> * application calls WaitCommEvent()
> * wait_on() is called
> * wait_on() calls get_irq_info()
> * get_irq_info() sets commio->irq_info->temt = 1
> * wait_on()
Hello Dimitry,
I think I now found the difference between my patches and yours and what makes
that one application fail (with or without [4/4] ntdll: Properly set flag
which indicates buffer empty state.)
My patch removes the attempt to flag EV_TXEMPTY only once.
In check_events() EV_TXEMPTY
On Wednesday 28 August 2013 12:41:00 Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
> Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
> > Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> > > It doesn't work here:
> > >
> > > ../../../tools/runtest -q -P wine -M kernel32.dll -T ../../.. -p
> > > kernel32_test.exe.so comm.c && touch comm.ok comm.c:835: Test failed
Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> >> I assume it's a real hardware and not a VM? Is this with a real COM port,
> >> or USB-serial cable? If the latter one what driver is it using?
> >
> > Looking at the failure messages above once again, I can say that WriteFile
> > failure is definitely not caused by
Dmitry Timoshkov writes:
> Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
>
>> Alexandre Julliard wrote:
>>
>> > It doesn't work here:
>> >
>> > ../../../tools/runtest -q -P wine -M kernel32.dll -T ../../.. -p
>> > kernel32_test.exe.so comm.c && touch comm.ok
>> > comm.c:835: Test failed: WriteFile took 1 ms to wr
Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
> Alexandre Julliard wrote:
>
> > It doesn't work here:
> >
> > ../../../tools/runtest -q -P wine -M kernel32.dll -T ../../.. -p
> > kernel32_test.exe.so comm.c && touch comm.ok
> > comm.c:835: Test failed: WriteFile took 1 ms to write 17 Bytes at 150 Baud
> > comm.c:8
Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> It doesn't work here:
>
> ../../../tools/runtest -q -P wine -M kernel32.dll -T ../../.. -p
> kernel32_test.exe.so comm.c && touch comm.ok
> comm.c:835: Test failed: WriteFile took 1 ms to write 17 Bytes at 150 Baud
> comm.c:848: Test failed: WaitCommEvent failed with
On Tuesday 27 August 2013 21:14:05 Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> Dmitry Timoshkov writes:
> > ---
> >
> > dlls/kernel32/tests/comm.c | 5 +
> > dlls/ntdll/serial.c| 13 +
> > 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>
> It doesn't work here:
>
> ../../../tools/r
Dmitry Timoshkov writes:
> ---
> dlls/kernel32/tests/comm.c | 5 +
> dlls/ntdll/serial.c| 13 +
> 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
It doesn't work here:
../../../tools/runtest -q -P wine -M kernel32.dll -T ../../.. -p
kernel32_test.exe.so comm.c && to
Marvin wrote:
> === WVISTAX64 (32 bit comm) ===
> comm.c:835: Test failed: WriteFile took 16 ms to write 0 Bytes at 150 Baud
Failure is not caused by this patch, probably a VM is very slow.
--
Dmitry.
Hi,
While running your changed tests on Windows, I think I found new failures.
Being a bot and all I'm not very good at pattern recognition, so I might be
wrong, but could you please double-check?
Full results can be found at
http://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=26878
Your paranoid android
13 matches
Mail list logo
