Re: mmdevapi/tests: Use RegQueryValueExW() for compatibility with Windows XP.
mmdevapi doesn't exist on winxp. I'm not opposed to this change, but does it matter? Andrew On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 11:52:11AM +0200, Francois Gouget wrote:
RegGetValueW() was added later and should be avoided in the conformance tests.
Signed-off-by: Francois Gouget <fgouget(a)free.fr> --- dlls/mmdevapi/tests/propstore.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/dlls/mmdevapi/tests/propstore.c b/dlls/mmdevapi/tests/propstore.c index 06fe690..665136f 100644 --- a/dlls/mmdevapi/tests/propstore.c +++ b/dlls/mmdevapi/tests/propstore.c @@ -173,7 +173,7 @@ static void test_setvalue_on_wow64(IPropertyStore *store)
/* Note: the registry key exists even without calling IPropStore::Commit */ size = sizeof(regval); - ret = RegGetValueW(props, NULL, bogusW, RRF_RT_DWORD, &type, ®val, &size); + ret = RegQueryValueExW(props, bogusW, NULL, &type, (LPBYTE)®val, &size); ok(ret == ERROR_SUCCESS, "Couldn't get bogus propertykey value: %u\n", ret); ok(type == REG_DWORD, "Got wrong value type: %u\n", type); ok(regval == 0xAB, "Got wrong value: 0x%x\n", regval); -- 2.8.0.rc3
On Wed, 20 Apr 2016, Andrew Eikum wrote:
mmdevapi doesn't exist on winxp. I'm not opposed to this change, but does it matter?
It fixes this failure: https://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=22355 Arguably the TestBot should have realized that mmdevapi is missing and skipped running the test altogether. But in the meantime this means further mmdevapi patches will not return spurious failures. -- Francois Gouget <fgouget(a)free.fr> http://fgouget.free.fr/ In theory, theory and practice are the same, but in practice they're different.
On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 10:17:49PM +0200, Francois Gouget wrote:
On Wed, 20 Apr 2016, Andrew Eikum wrote:
mmdevapi doesn't exist on winxp. I'm not opposed to this change, but does it matter?
It fixes this failure: https://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=22355
Arguably the TestBot should have realized that mmdevapi is missing and skipped running the test altogether. But in the meantime this means further mmdevapi patches will not return spurious failures.
Works for me. Signed-off-by: Andrew Eikum <aeikum(a)codeweavers.com>
participants (2)
-
Andrew Eikum -
Francois Gouget