[2/3] gdiplus: fix GdipPathIterNextMarker behaviour on path without markers. fix tests.

Alexandre Julliard julliard at winehq.org
Sun Jul 13 03:21:05 CDT 2008

Nikolay Sivov <bunglehead at gmail.com> writes:

> I don't think so. If the call fails testing return value doesn't make 
> any sense. In this case 'result' is uninitialized and remains 
> uninitialized after a call if it fails (here I mean a native too). So 
> why should we check something which has unpredictable value?
> By the way first time I saw this here 
> 8fd6f0e26ae28f2ba4938e2fbcc4851f47baa53c..

The difference is that this was a todo_wine, so it's expected to fail
and we don't want to test uninitialized data since that can cause random
test failures.

In your case the test is expected to succeed, so the only way you'll get
uninitialized data is when the first test fails, and then it doesn't
matter if we get a random second failure, the test failed already.

Alexandre Julliard
julliard at winehq.org

More information about the wine-devel mailing list