On 4/25/07, Kirill K. Smirnov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Now, I am writing tests for this.
Windows crashes if I pass NULL pointer to these function.
Crash can be easily avoided in wine.
Should we crash too?
And how the windows crash can be caught? Or just I should not write such
test-case?
Now, I am writing tests for this.
Windows crashes if I pass NULL pointer to these function.
Crash can be easily avoided in wine.
Should we crash too?
And how the windows crash can be caught? Or just I should not write such
test-case?
Thanks,
--
Kirill
On 4/25/07, Kirill K. Smirnov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > For containing backshash. Yes, comment must be better.
>
> A comment that states you're looking for a backslash is superfluous;
> the code makes that obvious. A better comment would be 'check for
> filename only' or something along
> >
> > For containing backshash. Yes, comment must be better.
>
> A comment that states you're looking for a backslash is superfluous;
> the code makes that obvious. A better comment would be 'check for
> filename only' or something along those lines.
Maybe, 'MSDN claims that if filename contains
On 4/25/07, Kirill K. Smirnov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 4/24/07, Kirill K. Smirnov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi,
> > I've sent the patch:
> > http://www.winehq.com/pipermail/wine-patches/2007-April/038205.html
> > about a week ago and it has not been applied. Please, explain, what is
> On 4/24/07, Kirill K. Smirnov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi,
> > I've sent the patch:
> > http://www.winehq.com/pipermail/wine-patches/2007-April/038205.html
> > about a week ago and it has not been applied. Please, explain, what is
> > wrong with it?
>
> You haven't sent in any tests for t
On 4/24/07, Kirill K. Smirnov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
I've sent the patch:
http://www.winehq.com/pipermail/wine-patches/2007-April/038205.html
about a week ago and it has not been applied. Please, explain, what is wrong
with it?
You haven't sent in any tests for this function. Is the
Hi,
I've sent the patch:
http://www.winehq.com/pipermail/wine-patches/2007-April/038205.html
about a week ago and it has not been applied. Please, explain, what is wrong
with it?
Thanks
--
Kirill
>If FILE_name_AtoW fails, the function fails, so the return value should be
FALSE, shouldn't it ?
TRUE means that current directory '.' should be added to PATH.
FALSE is returned if a special environment variable
NoDefaultCurrentDirectoryInExePath is set.
Of course, default sane value should be
+/***
+ * NeedCurrentDirectoryForExePathA (KERNEL32.@)
+ */
+BOOL WINAPI NeedCurrentDirectoryForExePathA( LPCSTR name )
+{
+WCHAR *nameW;
+
+if (!(nameW = FILE_name_AtoW( name, FALSE ))) return TRUE;
If FILE_na
>+if (strchrW(name, '\\'))
>+return TRUE;
>What is the point of this? You're returning TRUE no matter what anyway.
>+FIXME("(%s): stub!\n", debugstr_w(name));
>+return TRUE;
ancient patch in attach, sorry.
On 4/18/07, Kirill K. Smirnov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Add partial stub for NeedCurrentDirectoryForExePath. It is needed by win2003
cmd.exe
+if (strchrW(name, '\\'))
+return TRUE;
What is the point of this? You're returning TRUE no matter what anyway.
+FIXME("(%s): stub!\n
12 matches
Mail list logo
