[Bug 17518] winmm/mci tests fail with +heap enabled

[wine-bugs at winehq.org]

http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17518


Dan Kegel <dank at kegel.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Blocks|                            |9916

Jörg Höhle <hoehle at users.sourceforge.net> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |hoehle at users.sourceforge.ne
                   |                            |t




--- Comment #6 from Jörg Höhle <hoehle at users.sourceforge.net>  2010-05-28 16:10:01 ---
Dan's patch became commit ea5a6f2db5e6f05acf38f9257278cbcad58ab898
There's no more crash.

Let's keep this bug open as a remainder that not all relevant places are
patched.

1. TRACE(... "%s", debugstr_w(lpstrRet)) seems just as problematic.
   http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-devel/2010-May/083747.html

2. MCI_HandleReturnValues is called even in case of error, which is at least
inconsistent with Dan's commit (the buffer is left as Wchars, not 8bit).
E.g. winmm logs of MCI_OPEN show that a MCI device id is placed in the buffer
even when open fails.

Actually, we'd IMHO first need more than that one test formerly marked
todo_wine to analyse if/how the supplied buffer ever gets modified in case of
error (actually mciSendStringW sets *lpstrRet = '\0' -- quite late in the code,
i.e. not always, bug #3?).
The question is whether some apps can expect particular contents in some error
situations (e.g. partially filled buffer with MCIERR_PARAM_OVERFLOW?).

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://bugs.winehq.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the
above URL to reply.
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are watching all bug changes.