profile.c (kernel32): API broken

[Paul Vriens]

Claudio Fontana wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 9:38 AM, Paul Vriens<paul.vriens.wine at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Claudio Fontana wrote:
>>> Just a reminder to everyone involved with profile.c:
>>>
>>> I have watched the git log of the somewhat recent changes to
>>> kernel32/profile.c.
>>>
>>> The profile API does not work that way.
>>>
>>> The current situation is even worse than before, when the undocumented
>>> empty string section and empty keys were not implemented at all.
>>> The current situation leads to consistent INI file corruption when the
>>> applications use the undocumented empty string section and empty keys.
>>>
>>> I tried to explain how the API works under Windows many times. This is
>>> another casual attempt at giving you a reality check.
>>> If you are interested, you can contact me for further details, or look
>>> at the testcases in my last patch (search for profile.c / Claudio
>>> Fontana).
>>>
>> Found your patch from 2006 and tested on some Windows boxes.
> 
> The testcases are more interesting than the functionality of the patch itself.
> I did the patch just to bring an application into running, it is not a
> stable solution.
> 
> The testcases are the interesting thing.
> 
>> The WritePrivateProfileStringA crashes on Windows 2003 for both added tests.
>> Windows 98 doesn't crash btw.
>>
>> Both your fixes to the implementation seem to be for reading the ini file.
> 
> The writing is affected too.
> 
>> Could you rewrite the test case so it succeeds on all platforms?
> 
> I will try as soon as I get some time. However, I have no Windows 2003
> to test on.
> 
>> So, for example creating the ini file with the empty section/key 'manually'
>> and then trying to read (again on several platforms).
> 
> Does Windows 2003 crash on _just_ the testcase? Or did you apply the
> whole patch?
> Also, the patch might not be compatible with the latest changes in profile.c.
> 
> I'll try to make the patch a little bit better, but in the meantime it
> would be interesting
> to know if Windows 2003 behaves differently in this situation from the
> API point of view.
> 
> Can you try just the testcase on Windows 2003 (with no other changes
> added besides the new tests)?

I only added the test cases (what else for a Windows box?). Both crash 
on Windows 2003.

I will check later (if time permits) with that newer patch you 
mentioned: http://bugs2.winehq.org/attachment.cgi?id=6495

-- 
Cheers,

Paul.