[PATCH 1/3] lz32/tests: Test more last errors set by
saulius2 at ar.fi.lt
Wed Oct 4 15:22:01 CDT 2006
* On Tue, 3 Oct 2006, Detlef Riekenberg wrote:
> * On Di, 2006-10-03 at 20:40 +0300, Saulius Krasuckas wrote:
> > Well, thanks. I'll change that, but is it wrong just because it
> > slightly increases code complexity for no direct benefit? I just want
> > to know for future.
> For the normal case, SetLastError() is called only on failure.
Do we trust MSDN when we can check things ourselves? No, we don't trust,
> There might be some broken Applications, that expect GetLastError() to
> return a special Value, even when a Function returns success, but they
> will fail very fast on native Windows with a different version of
> Windows, SP, Hotfix or Driver.
That could be a way for a program to differentiate between 9x and NT
versions without calling GetVersion*(). I saw one code/app in the past,
which did such check by querying kernel32.dll for the OpenVxD export ;)
> Do you have such a Application?
No, I didn't. If I had, that would be my primary argument.
I even doubt there exist any application that calls LZOpenFileW() in the
world, but still Wine implements it plus it contains W-to-A cross-call, by
eliminating which I want to ensure no algorithmic logic was flawed in
A-version or in W-version of mentioned function. Hence my intense testing
for SetLastError(). I hoped this would let me easier to (re)build code
for LZOpenFile[AW]. It would make the code stricter. So I won't be lost
in some lots of possible solutions ;)
But nevermind, Detlef. I will add those "wrong" checks just in some of my
internal branches to make my fantasyless life easier and won't disturb the
life of the whole project :]
More information about the wine-devel