saulius2 at ar.fi.lt
Thu Apr 3 16:16:15 CDT 2008
* James Hawkins wrote:
>* On Jan 21, 2008 2:14 PM, Christopher wrote:
>>* Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
>>> 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.
>> 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
No, he did not. The word "need" wasn't appropriate here. Christopher
wasn't going to change LoadStringA. If changes of LoadStringW breaks
LoadStringA then tests would show regression. If tests are too weak, then
only patch commiter or previous patchers of the LoadStringA are to blame,
not the casual contributor who enhances B.
And if this is some new official rule for code, then I don't find it on
the site:www.winehq.org . Of course, I don't protest at the idea (as I
would do the same as Dmitry wrote), but I protest against usage of this
particular word -- it's too strong here. Please, be more accurate with it.
P.S.: James, you probably should start learning to cut unnecessary blocks
of quoted text (esp. empty lines) and doing some block justifying in your
replies using your MUA some day. Otherwise it gets too hard to read a
More information about the wine-devel