Re: [PATCH] kernel32: add condition variables prototypes and tests (2nd try)

[Dmitry Timoshkov]

Marcus Meissner  wrote:
> - if (!pInitializeConditionVariable) {
> -
>    skip("no condition variable support.\n");
> -
>    return;
> - }

Probably this should be a win_slip().
> - /* fprintf(stderr,"produced %d, c1 %d, c2 %d\n", totalproduced, cnt1, cnt2); */
> -
> - /* The sleeps of the producer or consumer should not go above 10000, otherwise
> -
> * the implementation does not sleep correctly. */
> -
> - /* fprintf(stderr,"producer sleep %d, consumer sleep %d\n", condvar_producer_sleepcnt, condvar_consumer_sleepcnt); */

There is trace() for debug output, it's shorter and more convenient IMHO.

[PATCH] kernel32: add condition variables prototypes and tests (2nd try)

[Marcus Meissner]

On Sun, Sep 02, 2012 at 11:40:52PM +0900, Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
> Marcus Meissner  wrote:
> > - if (!pInitializeConditionVariable) {
> > -
> >    skip("no condition variable support.\n");
> > -
> >    return;
> > - }
>
> Probably this should be a win_slip().

The function exists only since Windows 7/Vista (not XP) and is not yet
in Wine (and might take a while, as my time is limited currently
and my knowledge of this specific function same).

So I think "skip" is currently the right thing ;)
> > - /* fprintf(stderr,"produced %d, c1 %d, c2 %d\n", totalproduced, cnt1, cnt2); */
> > -
> > - /* The sleeps of the producer or consumer should not go above 10000, otherwise
> > -
> > * the implementation does not sleep correctly. */
> > -
> > - /* fprintf(stderr,"producer sleep %d, consumer sleep %d\n", condvar_producer_sleepcnt, condvar_consumer_sleepcnt); */
>
> There is trace() for debug output, it's shorter and more convenient IMHO.

True, I could do that, but its not relevant for the test as-is.

Ciao, Marcus

[PATCH] kernel32: add condition variables prototypes and tests (2nd try)

[Vincent Povirk]

> > Probably this should be a win_slip().
>
> The function exists only since Windows 7/Vista (not XP) and is not yet
> in Wine (and might take a while, as my time is limited currently
> and my knowledge of this specific function same).
>
> So I think "skip" is currently the right thing ;)

I think a "todo_wine win_skip" is appropriate for cases where Wine
should have an implementation but doesn't yet.

[PATCH] kernel32: add condition variables prototypes and tests (2nd try)

[Francois Gouget]

On Sun, 2 Sep 2012, Vincent Povirk wrote:
> > > Probably this should be a win_slip().
> >
> > The function exists only since Windows 7/Vista (not XP) and is not yet
> > in Wine (and might take a while, as my time is limited currently
> > and my knowledge of this specific function same).
> >
> > So I think "skip" is currently the right thing ;)
>
> I think a "todo_wine win_skip" is appropriate for cases where Wine
> should have an implementation but doesn't yet.

Absolutely. With a plain 'skip' we won't know that we have to change the 
test when the implementation is added to Wine whereas the 'todo 
win_skip' will make that clear.