LoadStringW [1/2]

[Christopher]

James Hawkins wrote:
> On Jan 21, 2008 2:14 PM, Christopher <raccoonone at procyongames.com> wrote:
>   
>> Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
>>     
>>> "Dmitry Timoshkov" <dmitry at codeweavers.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>       
>>>> It's not clear what this test is supposed to show. If the 1st call
>>>> to LoadStringW is supposed to set resourcepointer to not NULL, why
>>>> don't you test it? Then 'if(resourcepointer != NULL)' check and copying
>>>> to copiedstring are not needed.
>>>>
>>>> Also, if the test depends on a later patch to not fail, the test
>>>> should be
>>>> included in the patch.
>>>>         
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> In addition, as I already pointed out you need to inspect Wine source
>>> and fix
>>> the places which will be broken by your fix.
>>>
>>>       
>> 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 suite.
>
>   
How can I test for an access violation, won't that crash the test suite? 
Also, what's the guideline for what functions I need to write tests for 
when I send in a patch? I still don't understand why I need to write a 
test for LoadStringA since it has no dependence on LoadStringW (the 
function I'm patching).