From: Alexandre Julliard <julliard@winehq.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gdiplus/tests: Don't ignore successful tests.
Message-Id: <87shd857ku.fsf@winehq.org>
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 10:01:21 +0100
In-Reply-To: <4abd3151-7508-08d7-bc3e-b59a621b5917@gmail.com> (Zebediah Figura's message of "Mon, 20 Nov 2017 14:59:17 -0600")
References: <20171119010012.7188-1-z.figura12@gmail.com> <CAAFPtVR678gud1wuBFZ=TOkxTbm203+1CS=Epprz50Po+dxAEA@mail.gmail.com> <4abd3151-7508-08d7-bc3e-b59a621b5917@gmail.com>

Zebediah Figura <z.figura12@gmail.com> writes:

> On 11/20/2017 01:21 PM, Vincent Povirk wrote:
>>>           {
>>>               UINT i, size = sizeof(dst_8x1);
>>>               const BYTE *bits = dst_8x1;
>>>               for (i = 0; i < size; i++)
>>> -                trace(" %02x", bits[i]);
>>> -            trace("\n");
>>> +                printf(" %02x", bits[i]);
>>> +            printf("\n");
>>>           }
>>>       }
>>
>> Did you mean to include this part?
>>
>
> Yes, to avoid the trace() prefix being printed before every number. I
> can submit this in a separate patch if that would be preferable.

The problem is that this prints the data even in silent mode, and when
there's no reported failure (because of the todo_wine). Printing into a
buffer and then trace()ing it would be better.

-- 
Alexandre Julliard
julliard@winehq.org