Mike Kaplinskiy wrote:
Paul,
I don't like NT4 anymore. We're breaking up.
Does the attached patch fix the latest failures (not counting the
build warnings)?
Mike.
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 7:05 AM, Paul Vrienspaul.vriens.w...@gmail.com wrote:
Mike Kaplinskiy wrote:
Paul (and anyone who can
Mike Kaplinskiy wrote:
Paul (and anyone who can test on x86_64):
Can you confirm that the new patch gives no failures?
Mike.
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 2:02 AM, Paul Vrienspaul.vriens.w...@gmail.com wrote:
Mike Kaplinskiy wrote:
Paul,
Does the attached fix test failures on at least NT4? The
Paul,
I don't like NT4 anymore. We're breaking up.
Does the attached patch fix the latest failures (not counting the
build warnings)?
Mike.
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 7:05 AM, Paul Vrienspaul.vriens.w...@gmail.com wrote:
Mike Kaplinskiy wrote:
Paul (and anyone who can test on x86_64):
Can
Mike Kaplinskiy wrote:
Paul,
Does the attached fix test failures on at least NT4? The 4000 test
failures is ok, it's just 3999 of the same failure. The failures are
the same because of a mistake on my part.
I didn't get a chance to test this since my virtualbox is down until a
Paul (and anyone who can test on x86_64):
Can you confirm that the new patch gives no failures?
Mike.
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 2:02 AM, Paul Vrienspaul.vriens.w...@gmail.com wrote:
Mike Kaplinskiy wrote:
Paul,
Does the attached fix test failures on at least NT4? The 4000 test
failures is
Mike Kaplinskiy wrote:
This tests the following AcceptEx scenario:
WSAAccept-CF_DEFER-AcceptEx
Windows seems to return the deferred socket with AcceptEx (verified on
XP 2K3).
Mike.
Hi Mike,
These new tests fail
Paul,
Does the attached fix test failures on at least NT4? The 4000 test
failures is ok, it's just 3999 of the same failure. The failures are
the same because of a mistake on my part.
I didn't get a chance to test this since my virtualbox is down until a
2.6.31-compatible version of their kernel
