[PATCH 1/3] lz32/tests: Test more last errors set by LZOpenFile[AW].

Saulius Krasuckas 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.
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/debug/base/setlasterror.asp

Do we trust MSDN when we can check things ourselves?  No, we don't trust, 
right? :)

> 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 mailing list