(4th) Janitorial dlls/advapi32/registry.c W->A cleanup
tony_lambregts at telusplanet.net
Fri Mar 7 22:12:45 CST 2003
Dan Kegel wrote:
> Alexandre Julliard wrote:
>> This can't work, the sprintf is supposed to modify the buffer, not a
>> copy of it.
>> Also note that registry functions are not supposed to set last error,
>> so you probably don't want to use Dmitry's wrapper here.
> Hmm. Would it be possible for janitors to as a matter
> of course submit a regression test program for the
> routines they are sweeping up? That might avoid a few of these
> kind of issues.
> - Dan
I don't agree. The way I see it these janitorial projects are supposed
grunt work, and a lot of these W->A changes are just that. They are just
simple changes that anyone can do. Making it (writing the test) a
requirement might raise the bar to the point where no one (else) will
even attempt to do this stuff.
I was not comfortable with the sprintf situation when I wrote it and I
suspected it was wrong. The best way, that I know of, to get these
problems resolved is to get someone else to look at them, and submitting
a patch is the best way to get the feedback I need. The bottom line is
that, even if we had conformance tests I would still be up against the
OTOH I was going down the list of W->A calls and tried to work
on dlls/advapi32/crypt.c It has no tests and the amount of problems
with it hurt my brain. I have no intention of going any further with it
without some conformance tests. Even with conformance tests, I have my
doubts about being able to do without at least some feedback.
IMO after the simple changes are done, some of these W->A projects (like
crypt.c) are going to require some detailed knowledge. Exactly what to
do with them I don't know but I would not think of them as simply
I think it would be a better idea to have adding missing tests as a
separate janitorial project. Perhaps Patrik Stridvall has a inclination
to help out here. (So we have a list)
More information about the wine-devel