Patchwatcher: failed regression tests: [6/10 AcceptEx] Implements sock_close_handle

[Scott Lindeneau]

With regards to the info with patch [7/10] I see that it still fails
on patchwatcher, but patchwatcher ignores those. Does this mean that
it was causing this regression on patchwatcher before and that i never
noticed them because of a different regression? They still don't cause
regressions on my system however.

~Scott

On Sun, Sep 7, 2008 at 3:49 PM, Scott Lindeneau <slindeneau at gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't understand, this patch doesn't cause any regressions on my
> machine using the latest git (none of them do). The patch[6/10] is
> (nearly) identical to the patch I submitted earlier (which did not
> cause regressions). The only difference is in the hash. The next
> patch[7/10] changes zero functionality because the function that is
> implemented in [7/10] is unused at this point in time and patch [7/10]
> passes the conformance tests.
>
> scott at SocialSycotic:~/programming/wine/wine/patch$ diff
> 9.7.2/0006-Implements-sock_close_handle.txt
> 9-4.7/0006-Implements-sock_close_handle.txt
> 1c1
> < From 40ae4098b66df1cb30dc77368ccfc1c495bb0b68 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> ---
>> From d1e0353beb8490bbd9b8818523c6d79daae510ff Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> scott at SocialSycotic:~/programming/wine/wine/patch$
>
> Using only patches [1/10 - 6/10] (The patches applied by patchwatcher
> when it displays the failure):
>
> ../../../tools/runtest -q -P wine -M urlmon.dll -T ../../.. -p
> urlmon_test.exe.so protocol.c && touch protocol.ok
> fixme:wininet:InternetLockRequestFile STUB
> fixme:wininet:InternetLockRequestFile STUB
> fixme:wininet:InternetLockRequestFile STUB
> fixme:wininet:InternetLockRequestFile STUB
> ../../../tools/runtest -q -P wine -M urlmon.dll -T ../../.. -p
> urlmon_test.exe.so stream.c && touch stream.ok
>
> As for the conformance test. I will look into how I have to change the
> sock.c test loop.
>
> ~Scott
>
> On Sun, Sep 7, 2008 at 9:14 AM, Dan Kegel <dank at kegel.com> wrote:
>> This is interesting.   It does seem like that patch changed
>> an error code and added a new failure to urlmon:protocol.c.
>> Was this just a case of "I should have combined two of the
>> patches in the series"?
>>
>> BTW, if you end up resending the patch series again,
>> you might send the test case first (with todo_wine's),
>> and then after the errors are fixed, remove the todo_wine's.
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Sep 6, 2008 at 4:42 PM, Patchwatcher <patchwatcher at kegel.com> wrote:
>>> Hi!  This is the experimental automated wine patchwatcher thingy.
>>> The latest git sources were built and tested with your patch
>>> "[6/10 AcceptEx] Implements sock_close_handle"
>>> Result: the patch failed regression tests.
>>>
>>> You can retrieve the full build results at
>>>  http://kegel.com/wine/patchwatcher/results/1162.log
>>> and see the patch as parsed at
>>>  http://kegel.com/wine/patchwatcher/results/1162.txt
>>> See
>>>  http://kegel.com/wine/patchwatcher/results
>>> for more info.
>>>
>>>
>>
>