Am Montag, den 13.10.2008, 14:30 -0400 schrieb Chris Ahrendt:
> Ok I fixed the code to take this out... however : one section there is
> something I am not sure of so I left it in to prevent the exception from
> occuring.
This is an additional explanation in addition to the remarks I made to
your
---
ok(rc==DDERR_INVALIDPARAMS,"CreateSurface returned: %x\n",rc);
-
+if (FAILED(rc)) {
+ skip("failed to create surface\n");
+ return;
+ }
here it is _expected_ that the surface creation fails. So this code is not
useful. ALso in other places.
ciao, Marcus
Ok that
Marcus Meissner wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 09:52:06PM -0400, Chris Ahrendt wrote:
>> Ok I have threaded through ddraw_test adding as I had them fail a check
>> and a fix in dsurface.c test. The test now fails when the CreateSurface
>> fails. Before this there were several point in the test
On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 09:52:06PM -0400, Chris Ahrendt wrote:
> Ok I have threaded through ddraw_test adding as I had them fail a check
> and a fix in dsurface.c test. The test now fails when the CreateSurface
> fails. Before this there were several point in the test where the return
> status
On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 8:52 PM, Chris Ahrendt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ok I have threaded through ddraw_test adding as I had them fail a check and
> a fix in dsurface.c test. The test now fails when the CreateSurface fails.
> Before this there were several point in the test where the return s
Ok I have threaded through ddraw_test adding as I had them fail a check
and a fix in dsurface.c test. The test now fails when the CreateSurface
fails. Before this there were several point in the test where the return
status was not checked. As I encountered them and they failed with an
excepti
