On 8 November 2010 17:32, Reece Dunn mscl...@googlemail.com wrote:
On 8 November 2010 04:45, Austin Lund austin.l...@gmail.com wrote:
On 8 November 2010 11:49, James McKenzie jjmckenzi...@earthlink.net wrote:
Thus a second test case needs to be
developed that is only for Windows7 and the
On 11/07/2010 04:06 PM, David Hedberg wrote:
-ok(hr == S_OK, got (0x%08x)\n, hr);
+ok(hr == S_OK || hr == E_FAIL /* Win7 */, got (0x%08x)\n, hr);
This can't be correct. It either works or it fails. Can't be both at the
same time. You should look into why it's failing on Win7 and
On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 01:22, Vitaliy Margolen wine-de...@kievinfo.com wrote:
- ok(hr == S_OK, got (0x%08x)\n, hr);
+ ok(hr == S_OK || hr == E_FAIL /* Win7 */, got (0x%08x)\n, hr);
This can't be correct. It either works or it fails. Can't be both at the
same time. You should look into
On 11/7/10 6:41 PM, David Hedberg wrote:
On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 01:22, Vitaliy Margolenwine-de...@kievinfo.com wrote:
-ok(hr == S_OK, got (0x%08x)\n, hr);
+ok(hr == S_OK || hr == E_FAIL /* Win7 */, got (0x%08x)\n, hr);
This can't be correct. It either works or it fails. Can't be both
On 8 November 2010 11:49, James McKenzie jjmckenzi...@earthlink.net wrote:
Thus a second test case needs to be
developed that is only for Windows7 and the remaining test skipped for
Windows7. Something like what we do for Unicode tests for Windows9x/ME.
Isn't the rule that the tests should
On 8 November 2010 04:45, Austin Lund austin.l...@gmail.com wrote:
On 8 November 2010 11:49, James McKenzie jjmckenzi...@earthlink.net wrote:
Thus a second test case needs to be
developed that is only for Windows7 and the remaining test skipped for
Windows7. Something like what we do for
