I don't understand, this patch doesn't cause any regressions on my machine using the latest git (none of them do). The patch[6/10] is (nearly) identical to the patch I submitted earlier (which did not cause regressions). The only difference is in the hash. The next patch[7/10] changes zero functionality because the function that is implemented in [7/10] is unused at this point in time and patch [7/10] passes the conformance tests.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/programming/wine/wine/patch$ diff 9.7.2/0006-Implements-sock_close_handle.txt 9-4.7/0006-Implements-sock_close_handle.txt 1c1 < From 40ae4098b66df1cb30dc77368ccfc1c495bb0b68 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 --- > From d1e0353beb8490bbd9b8818523c6d79daae510ff Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/programming/wine/wine/patch$ Using only patches [1/10 - 6/10] (The patches applied by patchwatcher when it displays the failure): ../../../tools/runtest -q -P wine -M urlmon.dll -T ../../.. -p urlmon_test.exe.so protocol.c && touch protocol.ok fixme:wininet:InternetLockRequestFile STUB fixme:wininet:InternetLockRequestFile STUB fixme:wininet:InternetLockRequestFile STUB fixme:wininet:InternetLockRequestFile STUB ../../../tools/runtest -q -P wine -M urlmon.dll -T ../../.. -p urlmon_test.exe.so stream.c && touch stream.ok As for the conformance test. I will look into how I have to change the sock.c test loop. ~Scott On Sun, Sep 7, 2008 at 9:14 AM, Dan Kegel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This is interesting. It does seem like that patch changed > an error code and added a new failure to urlmon:protocol.c. > Was this just a case of "I should have combined two of the > patches in the series"? > > BTW, if you end up resending the patch series again, > you might send the test case first (with todo_wine's), > and then after the errors are fixed, remove the todo_wine's. > > > On Sat, Sep 6, 2008 at 4:42 PM, Patchwatcher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Hi! This is the experimental automated wine patchwatcher thingy. >> The latest git sources were built and tested with your patch >> "[6/10 AcceptEx] Implements sock_close_handle" >> Result: the patch failed regression tests. >> >> You can retrieve the full build results at >> http://kegel.com/wine/patchwatcher/results/1162.log >> and see the patch as parsed at >> http://kegel.com/wine/patchwatcher/results/1162.txt >> See >> http://kegel.com/wine/patchwatcher/results >> for more info. >> >> >