On 14 May 2013 23:46, Stefan Dösinger stefan@codeweavers.com wrote:
These tests have the potential to break on Windows when other applications create or release a large number of video memory resources while the test is running.
Yeah, maybe we don't really need this to be in the tree, although it's good to see for reference.
On 05/15/2013 06:32 AM, Henri Verbeet wrote:
On 14 May 2013 23:46, Stefan Dösinger stefan@codeweavers.com wrote:
These tests have the potential to break on Windows when other applications create or release a large number of video memory resources while the test is running.
Yeah, maybe we don't really need this to be in the tree, although it's good to see for reference.
OTOH, if they work on a moderately loaded, as opposed to a heavily loaded, Windows system they _are_ valid tests, and provide good targets for the wine implementations.
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 3:32 AM, Henri Verbeet hverbeet@gmail.com wrote:
On 14 May 2013 23:46, Stefan Dösinger stefan@codeweavers.com wrote:
These tests have the potential to break on Windows when other applications create or release a large number of video memory resources while the test is running.
Yeah, maybe we don't really need this to be in the tree, although it's good to see for reference.
It seems like a good candidate for if(winetest_interactive)
-- -Austin
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Am 2013-05-20 23:03, schrieb Austin English:
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 3:32 AM, Henri Verbeet hverbeet@gmail.com wrote:
On 14 May 2013 23:46, Stefan Dösinger stefan@codeweavers.com wrote:
These tests have the potential to break on Windows when other applications create or release a large number of video memory resources while the test is running.
Yeah, maybe we don't really need this to be in the tree, although it's good to see for reference.
It seems like a good candidate for if(winetest_interactive)
Good idea. I'll look into it.
Stefan
-
Austin English -
Henri Verbeet -
Max TenEyck Woodbury -
Stefan Dösinger