On Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 10:13 PM, Maynard, Chris
<christopher.mayn...@gtech.com> wrote:
> Apologies, I meant to write:
>
> if (!result || avail > 0 || !result1 || childstatus != STILL_ACTIVE) {
>
> I think I am too accustomed to *nix return values where 0 typically means
> success, and so I read the documentation too quickly thinking the same
> applied here.
>
> ... but since I'm not entirely sure what is needed here, I'll leave it to you
> (or someone else) to make an appropriate change. I just wanted the builds to
> succeed again so I could continue with some other stuff I was working on.
> And don't worry about the buildbot failing; it happens to us all, even to the
> best among us (and no, that would not be me in that category).I don't have a Windows machine to test on, but I've attached a patch which I *think* does the right thing. I made it into a g_error instead of a g_warning, since I expect that having the call fail is sufficiently unusual to warrant us bailing out ASAP, but that's more of a gut call than anything. If someone with a Windows machine can confirm that it works (at least as far as not breaking capture on windows machines) then please feel free to commit it. Evan
GetExitCodeProcess.patch
Description: Binary data
___________________________________________________________________________ Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@wireshark.org> Archives: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
