On Saturday 30 January 2010 12:55:21 André Hentschel wrote:
dlls/msi/files.c | 2 ++ 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/dlls/msi/files.c b/dlls/msi/files.c index 7e74dca..afeb451 100644 --- a/dlls/msi/files.c +++ b/dlls/msi/files.c @@ -363,6 +363,8 @@ static UINT ITERATE_DuplicateFiles(MSIRECORD *row, LPVOID param) { TRACE("Skipping copy due to disabled component %s\n", debugstr_w(component));
if (!comp)
return ERROR_INSTALL_FAILURE; /* the action taken was the same as the current install state */ comp->Action = comp->Installed;
Where do you see that crash? Are you sure ERROR_INSTALL_FAILURE is appropriate?
-Hans
Hans Leidekker schrieb:
On Saturday 30 January 2010 12:55:21 André Hentschel wrote:
dlls/msi/files.c | 2 ++ 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/dlls/msi/files.c b/dlls/msi/files.c index 7e74dca..afeb451 100644 --- a/dlls/msi/files.c +++ b/dlls/msi/files.c @@ -363,6 +363,8 @@ static UINT ITERATE_DuplicateFiles(MSIRECORD *row, LPVOID param) { TRACE("Skipping copy due to disabled component %s\n", debugstr_w(component));
if (!comp)
return ERROR_INSTALL_FAILURE; /* the action taken was the same as the current install state */ comp->Action = comp->Installed;
Where do you see that crash? Are you sure ERROR_INSTALL_FAILURE is appropriate?
-Hans
thought twice(and digging into the code some more), maybe returning a success is a better idea.
2010/1/30 André Hentschel nerv@dawncrow.de:
Hans Leidekker schrieb:
On Saturday 30 January 2010 12:55:21 André Hentschel wrote:
dlls/msi/files.c | 2 ++ 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/dlls/msi/files.c b/dlls/msi/files.c index 7e74dca..afeb451 100644 --- a/dlls/msi/files.c +++ b/dlls/msi/files.c @@ -363,6 +363,8 @@ static UINT ITERATE_DuplicateFiles(MSIRECORD *row, LPVOID param) { TRACE("Skipping copy due to disabled component %s\n", debugstr_w(component));
- if (!comp)
- return ERROR_INSTALL_FAILURE;
/* the action taken was the same as the current install state */ comp->Action = comp->Installed;
Where do you see that crash? Are you sure ERROR_INSTALL_FAILURE is appropriate?
-Hans
thought twice(and digging into the code some more), maybe returning a success is a better idea.
And writing a test to determine the correct behavior is an even better idea.