> I am still skeptical about the directx conformance test part. For one part, > we already > have this: It's our regular unit tests, to be found in dlls/d3d?/tests/*, > dlls/ddraw/tests/*, > etc.
OK -- it would definitely not make sense to redo the work if the tests are completed to satisfaction. In that case, I would recommend renaming/clarifying the suggested GSOC project on the Wine wiki. It seems to suggest that conformance tests need to be written. > For end user purposes it would make more sense to write tests testing for > known driver bugs and > report them to the user, stating a possible solution(usually "hope for a > driver update") and possible > game specific problems this may cause. I'm not convinced that this is worth > the effort however, since > usually all we can tell the user is that his driver is broken and that the > game won't run no matter what > he does. I'm not convinced that would be worthwhile either. AppDB seems to document those types of things just fine already, and as you say the solution is most likely "wait for a driver update." > Concerning tests, a possible project would be to pick an ATI and Nvidia GPU > and make sure that our existing > conformance tests pass on both GPUs on at least WinXP, WinVista and Win7. > Currently there is no single > Windows setup that can run all the tests successfully(usually because the > tests are too strict), and that is a shame. Not even Alexandre's? :-) I don't know that this would necessarily be worth it either. I might be wrong but doesn't even a minor change to a graphics driver have a chance to cause a test to fail? If that's the case, I'd certainly not want to try to get tests passing between WinXP and WinVista/7 since the architectural difference is enormous. Thank you for the input. I will work on a few other proposals and shoot them to the list soon. Hopefully I can have them formally submitted within the next few days. As always, thanks!
