On 11/19/19 4:40 AM, Jeff Smith wrote:
Signed-off-by: Jeff Smith <whydoubt(a)gmail.com> --- dlls/xmllite/reader.c | 5 +++-- dlls/xmllite/tests/reader.c | 1 - 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/dlls/xmllite/reader.c b/dlls/xmllite/reader.c index eddc4d8eec..5299871136 100644 --- a/dlls/xmllite/reader.c +++ b/dlls/xmllite/reader.c @@ -1459,7 +1459,7 @@ static HRESULT reader_parse_comment(xmlreader *reader) reader_init_strvalue(start, reader_get_cur(reader)-start, &value); TRACE("%s\n", debug_strval(reader, &value));
- /* skip rest of markup '->' */ + /* skip rest of markup '-->' */ reader_skipn(reader, 3); That's obviously correct.
reader_set_strvalue(reader, StringValue_Value, &value); @@ -1472,8 +1472,9 @@ static HRESULT reader_parse_comment(xmlreader *reader) } }
- reader_skipn(reader, 1); ptr++; + if (*ptr) + reader_skipn(reader, 1); } I don't think it makes sense to change that just to get expected call sequence. Admittedly test itself is questionable.