On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 10:29:37AM +0900, Mike McCormack wrote:
The best way to write a test is to look at some of the test cases that
are there already. Write and run the test under Windows, and make sure
it passes on Windows first. The test is something like this:
Ah! Whoops, I didn't
Kees Cook wrote:
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 02:32:11PM +0900, Mike McCormack wrote:
The new patch looks good. I should have mentioned before that writing a
test case will help your patch be accepted. Did you have any test code
about that you could turn into a test case for your newly
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 02:32:11PM +0900, Mike McCormack wrote:
The new patch looks good. I should have mentioned before that writing a
test case will help your patch be accepted. Did you have any test code
about that you could turn into a test case for your newly implemented
functions?
Kees Cook wrote:
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 02:32:11PM +0900, Mike McCormack wrote:
The new patch looks good. I should have mentioned before that writing a
test case will help your patch be accepted. Did you have any test code
about that you could turn into a test case for your newly implemented
Kees Cook wrote:
Sure, I can write something. I'll look around for docs on how to run
tests -- I didn't find that when I looked around this morning.
The best way to write a test is to look at some of the test cases that
are there already. Write and run the test under Windows, and make sure
it
Kees Cook wrote:
ChangeLog:
Black-box implementation of CryptProtectData/CryptUnprotectData.
Here is an updated patch with various recommendations implemented.
Hi Kees,
The new patch looks good. I should have mentioned before that writing a
test case will help your patch be accepted. Did
