LoadStringW [1/2]

[James Hawkins]

On Jan 21, 2008 2:47 PM, Christopher <raccoonone at procyongames.com> wrote:
>
> James Hawkins wrote:
> > On Jan 21, 2008 2:14 PM, Christopher <raccoonone at procyongames.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
> >>
> >>> "Dmitry Timoshkov" <dmitry at codeweavers.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> It's not clear what this test is supposed to show. If the 1st call
> >>>> to LoadStringW is supposed to set resourcepointer to not NULL, why
> >>>> don't you test it? Then 'if(resourcepointer != NULL)' check and copying
> >>>> to copiedstring are not needed.
> >>>>
> >>>> Also, if the test depends on a later patch to not fail, the test
> >>>> should be
> >>>> included in the patch.
> >>>>
> >>> Also, you need to test LoadStringA, to see if it behaves similarly. It
> >>> would be
> >>> also interesting to test LoadStringA/W with both buffer and buffer
> >>> length set
> >>> to 0.
> >>>
> >>> In addition, as I already pointed out you need to inspect Wine source
> >>> and fix
> >>> the places which will be broken by your fix.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> I tested LoadStringA under Windows XP, and calling it with buflen == 0
> >> does not return a pointer to the resource. In fact LoadStringA seems to
> >> behave fairly differently from LoadStringW: in that calling with buffer
> >> == NULL causes an access violation instead of just returning 0.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > That's why you need to add tests for LoadStringA to Wine's test suite.
> >
> >
> How can I test for an access violation, won't that crash the test suite?
> Also, what's the guideline for what functions I need to write tests for
> when I send in a patch? I still don't understand why I need to write a
> test for LoadStringA since it has no dependence on LoadStringW (the
> function I'm patching).
>

You could start by reading the code.  LoadStringA is a wrapper around
LoadStringW.

-- 
James Hawkins