secur32: Fix a failing test in win95
jhawkins at codeweavers.com
Wed Sep 24 13:19:10 CDT 2008
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 6:23 AM, Paul Vriens <paul.vriens.wine at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 12:47 PM, James Hawkins
> <jhawkins at codeweavers.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 5:30 AM, Paul Vriens <paul.vriens.wine at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 10:06 AM, James Hawkins
>>> <jhawkins at codeweavers.com> wrote:
>>>> * Fix a failing test in win95.
>>>> dlls/secur32/tests/main.c | 3 ++-
>>>> 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>>>> James Hawkins
>>> But if the result is SEC_E_UNSUPPORTED_FUNCTION it's not broken is it?
>> Do you think returning SEC_E_UNSUPPORTED_FUNCTION is acceptable
>> behavior for Wine?
> No of course not. But we tend to use broken() if we think a certain
> windows platform is well uh, broken. And we use skip() if it's
> accepted behavior.
You use skip so that you don't have to add (potentially) hundreds of
broken statements. I didn't want to clutter it up with a skip that
was already happening, if only in another way.
More information about the wine-devel