Re: ntdll: Add a stub implementation for RtlDllShutdownInProgress.

[Robert Shearman]

Mike McCormack wrote:
> +NTSTATUS WINAPI RtlDllShutdownInProgress(void)
> +{
> - FIXME("\n");
> - return STATUS_SUCCESS;
>
> +}

For undocumented functions like this, you should add a test case.

ntdll: Add a stub implementation for RtlDllShutdownInProgress.

[Mike McCormack]

Robert Shearman wrote:
> > +NTSTATUS WINAPI RtlDllShutdownInProgress(void)
> For undocumented functions like this, you should add a test case.

That's unreasonable.  A stub isn't meant to work correctly, just stop an 
application from crashing.  What will a test case prove?

Mike

ntdll: Add a stub implementation for RtlDllShutdownInProgress.

[Robert Shearman]

Mike McCormack wrote:
> Robert Shearman wrote:
> > > +NTSTATUS WINAPI RtlDllShutdownInProgress(void)
> > For undocumented functions like this, you should add a test case.
>
> That's unreasonable.  A stub isn't meant to work correctly, just stop 
> an application from crashing.  What will a test case prove?

In this case, just that the prototype is correct and so won't crash the 
program in random ways when the function is called.

ntdll: Add a stub implementation for RtlDllShutdownInProgress.

[Mike McCormack]

Robert Shearman wrote:
> In this case, just that the prototype is correct and so won't crash the 
> program in random ways when the function is called.

Well, you're welcome to write such a test case if you think it's 
necessary.  I think you'll prove nothing useful.

Mike