MS's documentation has been found to be incorrect or misleading in the past.
Adding a test to wine's regression test suite would be an ideal way of not
only confirming this behavior on windows but also ensuring that wine has the
correct behavior and doesn't break it in the future.
Chris
On T
--- Alexandre Julliard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No, the interesting case is what happens with
> CreateProcess. Launching
> the app from cmd.exe doesn't tell you anything,
> because you don't know
> exactly what arguments cmd.exe passed to
> CreateProcess.
You're right, as usual :)
I created a
Juan Lang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This is the same executable, so it isn't a different
> _CRTMainStartup. I think this supports Frank's
> assertion.
No, the interesting case is what happens with CreateProcess. Launching
the app from cmd.exe doesn't tell you anything, because you don't know
Sorry, forgot to mention, under Win9x in the debugger
the output is the same as under the Win2k debugger:
argv[0] is c:\src\cmdlinetest\Debug\cmdlinetest.exe
GetCommandLine returns
"c:\src\cmdlinetest\Debug\cmdlinetest.exe"
Hmm.. that contradicts what I said, doesn't it? Ain't
Windows the best?
Okay, here's a test program:
#include
#include
int main(int argc, const char *argv[])
{
LPCSTR cmd;
printf("argv[0] is %s\n", argv[0]);
cmd = GetCommandLineA();
printf("GetCommandLine returns %s\n", cmd);
return strcmp(argv[0], cmd);
}
Under Windows 2000, cmd.exe, run from
Alexandre Julliard wrote:
Frank Schruefer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
-Remark in dlls/kernel/environ.c. Quote:
"
* WARNING: there's a Windows incompatibility lurking here !
* Win32s always includes the full path of the program file,
* whereas Windows NT only returns the full file path plus arg
Frank Schruefer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> -Remark in dlls/kernel/environ.c. Quote:
> "
> * WARNING: there's a Windows incompatibility lurking here !
> * Win32s always includes the full path of the program file,
> * whereas Windows NT only returns the full file path plus arguments
> * i
Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
"Frank Schruefer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Was this patch forgotten/rejected?
Did you consider to provide a test suite as well to justify
the change?
Not really: It looks like there's already an existing test in
dlls/kernel/tests/environ.c.
This test is broken BTW *wit
"Frank Schruefer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Was this patch forgotten/rejected?
Did you consider to provide a test suite as well to justify
the change?
--
Dmitry.
