m.hearn at signal.qinetiq.com
Wed Apr 2 02:05:07 CST 2003
I ran my test case on 98, and that produced a return value of 2 as well
(same as XP), so unless my test case is stuffed up, I think this patch
is correct. The test is attached, it's extremely simple.
On Tue, 2003-04-01 at 16:37, Mike Hearn wrote:
> > That sounds awfully much like the already pretty well-known Win9x vs. NT
> > incompatibility in file not found GetLastError values.
> Awwww suckage. I thought that fix was too easy. File not found
> differences are new to me. Well I have a little test case for this, I'll
> email it home and find out what it returns on Win98.
> If so, then, how do you find out what version of windows we're supposed
> to be emulating, so I can adjust the return value accordingly?
> > Please make sure this is indeed what we should do; I really think
> > you'd break some Win9x programs when simply doing such a general replacement.
> Hmm, well, the old value appeared to break some NT programs.
> > As such, I suspect you did not "Correct" the error code returned;
> > instead, you only fixed it "to please the other half" of Windows programs.
> > ;-)
> Right. So we need to change the return value depending on the setting of
Mike Hearn <m.hearn at signal.qinetiq.com>
QinetiQ - Malvern Technology Center
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 262 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-devel/attachments/20030402/2a3927b7/test.bin
More information about the wine-devel