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
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
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
* 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
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
* 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
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
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
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
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
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?
11 matches
Mail list logo