On 01/10/2010 05:44 PM, André Hentschel wrote:
dlls/ntdll/tests/om.c | 3 ++- 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/dlls/ntdll/tests/om.c b/dlls/ntdll/tests/om.c index 1bab21d..e351813 100644 --- a/dlls/ntdll/tests/om.c +++ b/dlls/ntdll/tests/om.c @@ -677,7 +677,8 @@ static void test_query_object(void) ok( status == STATUS_SUCCESS, "NtQueryObject failed %x\n", status ); ok( len> sizeof(UNICODE_STRING), "unexpected len %u\n", len ); str = (UNICODE_STRING *)buffer;
- ok( sizeof(UNICODE_STRING) + str->Length + sizeof(WCHAR) == len, "unexpected len %u\n", len );
- ok( sizeof(UNICODE_STRING) + str->Length == len /* WinNT */ ||
sizeof(UNICODE_STRING) + str->Length + sizeof(WCHAR) == len, "unexpected len %u\n", len ); trace( "got %s len %u\n", wine_dbgstr_w(str->Buffer), len ); pNtClose( handle );
Looks a bit like:
http://source.winehq.org/patches/data/57319
Except that I used broken() for NT4 which IMHO makes more sense as this is the only platform with this issue.
Paul Vriens schrieb:
On 01/10/2010 05:44 PM, André Hentschel wrote:
dlls/ntdll/tests/om.c | 3 ++- 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/dlls/ntdll/tests/om.c b/dlls/ntdll/tests/om.c index 1bab21d..e351813 100644 --- a/dlls/ntdll/tests/om.c +++ b/dlls/ntdll/tests/om.c @@ -677,7 +677,8 @@ static void test_query_object(void) ok( status == STATUS_SUCCESS, "NtQueryObject failed %x\n", status ); ok( len> sizeof(UNICODE_STRING), "unexpected len %u\n", len ); str = (UNICODE_STRING *)buffer;
- ok( sizeof(UNICODE_STRING) + str->Length + sizeof(WCHAR) == len,
"unexpected len %u\n", len );
- ok( sizeof(UNICODE_STRING) + str->Length == len /* WinNT */ ||
sizeof(UNICODE_STRING) + str->Length + sizeof(WCHAR) == len,"unexpected len %u\n", len ); trace( "got %s len %u\n", wine_dbgstr_w(str->Buffer), len ); pNtClose( handle ); }
Looks a bit like:
http://source.winehq.org/patches/data/57319
Except that I used broken() for NT4 which IMHO makes more sense as this is the only platform with this issue.
Hi Paul, sorry didnt see your patch, it was not my purpose to compete for that. I also had broken() in mind, but using http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-devel/2008-October/069721.html i am not sure.
On 01/10/2010 06:00 PM, André Hentschel wrote:
Hi Paul, sorry didnt see your patch, it was not my purpose to compete for that. I also had broken() in mind, but using http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-devel/2008-October/069721.html i am not sure.
The 'problem' with broken() is that it just sounds bad. We also use broken() to force Wine to use a particular implementation. The fact that only NT4 has this issue makes it broken() in the sense that we want to follow the NT4+ implementation.
As said before maybe we need a deprecated() which is the same as broken() but just doesn't look as bad ;)
-
André Hentschel -
Paul Vriens