Re: ntdll/tests: Mark return value of RtlUnicodeStringToInteger("", 16) as broken for nt4.

[Paul Vriens]

Huw Davies wrote:
> ---
>  dlls/ntdll/tests/rtlstr.c |    3 ++-
>  1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi,

I don't think this is correct. This test has always succeeded until 
March 9th. There haven't been any changes to the test in that period, 
but I remember an upgrade of winehq in that weekend.

In other words, there is more to it. Testing a simple cross compiled 
version of this test doesn't yield an error on NT4.

-- 
Cheers,

Paul.

ntdll/tests: Mark return value of RtlUnicodeStringToInteger("", 16) as broken for nt4.

[Alexandre Julliard]

Paul Vriens <paul.vriens.wine(a)gmail.com> writes:
> I don't think this is correct. This test has always succeeded until
> March 9th. There haven't been any changes to the test in that period,
> but I remember an upgrade of winehq in that weekend.
>
> In other words, there is more to it. Testing a simple cross compiled
> version of this test doesn't yield an error on NT4.

My feeling is that it's returning uninitialized data, so the results
depend on the stack layout that the compiler is using. There's probably
no sense in checking for a specific value, just consider this case
broken no matter what it returns.

-- 
Alexandre Julliard
julliard(a)winehq.org

ntdll/tests: Mark return value of RtlUnicodeStringToInteger("", 16) as broken for nt4.

[Huw Davies]

On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 03:39:07PM +0200, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> Paul Vriens <paul.vriens.wine(a)gmail.com> writes:
> > I don't think this is correct. This test has always succeeded until
> > March 9th. There haven't been any changes to the test in that period,
> > but I remember an upgrade of winehq in that weekend.
> >
> > In other words, there is more to it. Testing a simple cross compiled
> > version of this test doesn't yield an error on NT4.
>
> My feeling is that it's returning uninitialized data, so the results
> depend on the stack layout that the compiler is using. There's probably
> no sense in checking for a specific value, just consider this case
> broken no matter what it returns.

Ok, I'll resend without the test on the returned value.

Huw.