BuildCommDCBAndTimeouts patch

[Kevin Groeneveld]

Jakob Eriksson wrote:
> Could you also make test.c into a regression test for inclusion into Wine?
> That is almost more important than the actual patch to Wine - if we have
> the conformance test, it ensures changes to Wine in the future does not
> destroy functionality.

I agree that this would be a good idea.  Dimitrie also had the same 
suggestion in response to my patch submission.  With all the discussion 
about conformance testing in this forum recently, the idea was already 
in the back of my mind when I submitted the original patch.

So far I have never tried to run any of the existing tests or looked at 
how they are implemented so it may take me a bit to write a test for the 
BuildCommDCB functions.

One question I have is how should the differences in Windows versions be 
handled?  This question applies to both the wine implementation and the 
tests.

One example is that BuildCommDCB in Windows 95 sets the DCBlength member 
of DCB but Windows 2000 does not.  Should wine account for this 
difference?  Should the regression test?  In the patch I submitted I 
always set the DCBlength member and documented the difference in Windows 
versions in a comment.


Kevin