* On Mon, 14 Nov 2005, Jakob Eriksson wrote: > * Saulius Krasuckas wrote: > > * On Mon, 14 Nov 2005, Jakob Eriksson wrote: > > > > > > The recommended thing to do is check for something that can hint of > > > bad things to happen. > > > > (GetVersion() < 0x80000000) gives 0 both under Win98 SE and WinME. > > Test crashes under Win98SE but it doesn't under WinME. I am sure, the > > versions of crypt32.dll on both boxes are different. > > Proposal: > > Add a mechanism for detecting running a test several times. > > The first time serving the purpose of checking if the test crashes or > not. If the test crashes, it is run again, but with an argument telling > it that it crashed last time.
Nice shot. :) But lets look further. > This information is used to hint the test to avoid whatever it feels > should be avoided. Ok, and this way we check only one crash point. My patches commented out 8 such points. Maybe it's not a problem to rerun every test a dozen of times, but where should we put information about every different crash? Sounds like a small DB again. :-/ > > we should know not only the version of DLL, isNT value and tested > > function name, but we should also see what parameters and what their > > values can crash. This would require a 5-dimensional array of > > strings, I'd say. > > > > Would anynone here like to maintain such beast? > > I'm crazy enough, but probably has too little time. So no. :-] I wouldn't too.
