Am Donnerstag, 5. September 2013, 23:32:00 schrieben Sie: > Wolfgang Walter <w...@stwm.de> wrote: > > > > > > With my patches 1/2 and 2/2 I get: > > > > > > > > > > > > fixme:iphlpapi:NotifyAddrChange (Handle 0x10ee8e0, overlapped > > > > > > 0x10ee8ec): > > > > > > stub wine: configuration in '/home/walterw/.wine' has been > > > > > > updated. > > > > > > fixme:comm:set_queue_size insize 1024 outsize 1024 unimplemented > > > > > > stub > > > > > > comm.c:857: Test succeeded inside todo block: WaitCommEvent failed > > > > > > with a > > > > > > timeout comm.c:881: Test succeeded inside todo block: > > > > > > WaitCommEvent > > > > > > error > > > > > > 997 comm.c:883: Test succeeded inside todo block: WaitCommEvent: > > > > > > expected > > > > > > EV_TXEMPTY, got 0x4 comm.c:889: Test succeeded inside todo block: > > > > > > WaitCommEvent used 1141 ms for waiting err:comm:set_line_control > > > > > > ByteSize > > > > > > fixme:ntdll:server_ioctl_file Unsupported ioctl 1b000c (device=1b > > > > > > access=0 > > > > > > func=3 method=0) comm.c:2036: Tests skipped: interactive tests > > > > > > (set > > > > > > WINETEST_INTERACTIVE=1) > > > > > > > > > > Successes inside of todo_wine blocks are treated as failres. > > > > > > > > So you think I should remove the wine_todos already here? > > > > > > No, the source of the failures is still there. > > > > What do you mean with that? The tests indeed do succeed now and there is a > > reason they do: when you call WaitCommEvent() while the tx buffer is not > > empty > > yet the wine code will detect that EV_TXEMPTY correctly: > The tests must pass under Wine without any additional "fixes" as they do > currently under Windows. If you add some code to the tests which suddenly > makes them pass under Wine - that's not a fix, Wine implementation should > be fixed instead.
You basically say that one may not fix a bug before fixing another one which is not related only because they are tested for in a special order and these tests influence each other though they are not really related. Again: In this case not wine behaves incorrectly but the test is simply wrong. It first tests if WaitCommEvent() returns ERROR_INVALID_PARAMETER if called with NULL without without ovl structure. Then it tests the EV_TXEMPTY handling. The latter test will always fail even if it works perfectly as long as wine does not return ERROR_INVALID_PARAMETER but instead does the write in the first test. This is because the second tests does not wait long enough for both writes to complete. Regards, -- Wolfgang Walter Studentenwerk München Anstalt des öffentlichen Rechts Abteilungsleiter IT Leopoldstraße 15 80802 München