"Dmitry Timoshkov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > May I see a log? Do I need to fix them, or someone with NT4 around should > look at it?
Here's what I get (note that some of these already exist in the current version): atom.c:55:Unicode APIs are supported atom.c:102: Test failed: succeeded adding c000 atom.c:111: Test failed: succeeded adding c000 atom.c:102: Test failed: succeeded adding c001 atom.c:111: Test failed: succeeded adding c001 [etc....] atom.c:102: Test failed: succeeded adding ffff atom.c:111: Test failed: succeeded adding ffff atom.c:136: Test failed: GlobalGetAtomNameA succeeded on short buffer atom.c:172: Test failed: succeded atom.c:203: Test failed: succeded atom.c:208: Test failed: succeded atom.c:257: Test failed: infinite loop atom.c:285: Test failed: delete atom succeded atom.c:303: Test failed: add succeded atom.c:308: Test failed: find succeded atom.c:322: Test failed: add succeded atom.c:324: Test failed: find succeded atom: 229529 tests executed, 0 marked as todo, 32778 failures. And this is what I get with your codepage test: codepage.c:39: Test failed: should return an error and not touch buffer codepage.c:46: Test failed: should return an error and not touch buffer codepage: 4 tests executed, 0 marked as todo, 2 failures. > I asssume we should adhere win2000 behaviour. Am I right? I'll remove > redundant tests for unicode_OS and resubmit patch then. We don't necessarily have to adhere to win2000. We can choose the behavior that makes the most sense, or that is the fastest. > One more question: should we add a point out in the test that tests are > platform specific? Not sure what you mean; the tests must not be platform specific, they must work on all platforms. Things that only work on a given platform don't need to be tested for, since it's very unlikely that apps depend on them (and we can add a test once we find such an app). -- Alexandre Julliard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
