Re: kernel32/tests: remove win9x hacks (try 2)

2011-02-26 Thread James McKenzie
On 2/25/11 10:33 AM, Alexandre Julliard wrote: Saulius Krasuckas writes: Thanks. Do you mean something like integrating OpenWatcom C compiler optionally into dlls/*/tests? And then running 16-bit part of winetest on Win3.1? WinXP seems to be broken in my case. While Win98 seems OK. No, wi

Re: kernel32/tests: remove win9x hacks (try 2)

2011-02-26 Thread James McKenzie
On 2/24/11 4:50 AM, Alexandre Julliard wrote: Damjan Jovanovic writes: What's the first Git version of Wine on which Win9x tests started being removed? Is it 226c44097b26dcb547d533cb1690f60182d1728e or b7c18d104b2d68a2a07574f01bb306df3fc138d2? It might still be useful to cross-compile tests on

Re: kernel32/tests: remove win9x hacks (try 2)

2011-02-25 Thread Alexandre Julliard
Saulius Krasuckas writes: > Thanks. Do you mean something like integrating OpenWatcom C compiler > optionally into dlls/*/tests? > > And then running 16-bit part of winetest on Win3.1? WinXP seems to be > broken in my case. While Win98 seems OK. No, winetest would run on XP. If your app doe

Re: kernel32/tests: remove win9x hacks (try 2)

2011-02-25 Thread Saulius Krasuckas
* On Thu, 24 Feb 2011, Alexandre Julliard wrote: > Saulius Krasuckas writes: > > > I have at least one Win16 app which behaves differently on Win16, on > > XP and on Wine [*]. > > What's the right way to get it running OK on Wine then (without > > appropriate Win16API tests) ? > > Fix the bug

Re: kernel32/tests: remove win9x hacks (try 2)

2011-02-24 Thread Alexandre Julliard
Saulius Krasuckas writes: > I have at least one Win16 app which behaves differently on Win16, on XP > and on Wine [*]. > What's the right way to get it running OK on Wine then (without > appropriate Win16API tests) ? Fix the bug without a test, or work on adding a 16-bit test suite. This has n

Re: kernel32/tests: remove win9x hacks (try 2)

2011-02-24 Thread Saulius Krasuckas
* On Thu, 24 Feb 2011, Alexandre Julliard wrote: > > The win9x support makes the tests less strict, by allowing additional > behaviors, and that only when running on Windows. Is that a problem? > Running them on Wine is pointless since these code paths are never > executed. I may be missing t

Re: kernel32/tests: remove win9x hacks (try 2)

2011-02-24 Thread Alexandre Julliard
Damjan Jovanovic writes: > What's the first Git version of Wine on which Win9x tests started > being removed? Is it 226c44097b26dcb547d533cb1690f60182d1728e or > b7c18d104b2d68a2a07574f01bb306df3fc138d2? It might still be useful to > cross-compile tests on the version before that one and sporadic

Re: kernel32/tests: remove win9x hacks (try 2)

2011-02-24 Thread Damjan Jovanovic
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 9:13 PM, Austin English wrote: > On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 03:17, Damjan Jovanovic wrote: >> On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 11:38 AM, Austin English >> wrote: >>> -- >>> -Austin >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> So test.winehq.org doesn't test Win9x any more, but why are we >> throwing away p

Re: kernel32/tests: remove win9x hacks (try 2)

2011-02-23 Thread James McKenzie
On 2/23/11 12:13 PM, Austin English wrote: On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 03:17, Damjan Jovanovic wrote: On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 11:38 AM, Austin English wrote: -- -Austin So test.winehq.org doesn't test Win9x any more, but why are we throwing away perfectly good Win9x tests that took years to

Re: kernel32/tests: remove win9x hacks (try 2)

2011-02-23 Thread Austin English
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 03:17, Damjan Jovanovic wrote: > On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 11:38 AM, Austin English > wrote: >> -- >> -Austin >> >> >> >> > > So test.winehq.org doesn't test Win9x any more, but why are we > throwing away perfectly good Win9x tests that took years to get in? Because the cod

Re: kernel32/tests: remove win9x hacks (try 2)

2011-02-23 Thread Damjan Jovanovic
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 11:38 AM, Austin English wrote: > -- > -Austin > > > > So test.winehq.org doesn't test Win9x any more, but why are we throwing away perfectly good Win9x tests that took years to get in?