re: [PATCH] kernel32: GetPrivateProfileSectionNamesA error checking (Coverity)

[Dan Kegel]

AJ wrote:
> Marcus Meissner <marcus at jet.franken.de> writes:
> > buffer and size need to be either 0 at the same time or not,
> > otherwise this breaks up. Windows is inconsistent (either crashes
> > or returns invalids), so we can just add checking.
>
> If Windows crashes we don't need extra checks. Just tell Coverity that
> crashing is allowed here.

If later versions of Windows return INVALID_PARAMETER,
wouldn't it be ok for Wine to do so rather than crashing?
In other words, isn't it ok to emulate the 'best' behaved
version of windows in cases like this, rather than the 'worst'?

[PATCH] kernel32: GetPrivateProfileSectionNamesA error checking (Coverity)

[Paul Vriens]

On 01/06/2010 04:03 PM, Dan Kegel wrote:
> AJ wrote:
> > Marcus Meissner<marcus at jet.franken.de>  writes:
> > > buffer and size need to be either 0 at the same time or not,
> > > otherwise this breaks up. Windows is inconsistent (either crashes
> > > or returns invalids), so we can just add checking.
> >
> > If Windows crashes we don't need extra checks. Just tell Coverity that
> > crashing is allowed here.
>
> If later versions of Windows return INVALID_PARAMETER,
> wouldn't it be ok for Wine to do so rather than crashing?
> In other words, isn't it ok to emulate the 'best' behaved
> version of windows in cases like this, rather than the 'worst'?

I could agree with that in general. This particular one crashes on all 
of the boxes at winetestbot though:

https://winetestbot.geldorp.nl/JobDetails.pl?Key=254

One unfortunate thing is of course that we would have a hard time fixing 
tests on boxes that would crash whereas newer ones don't.

[PATCH] kernel32: GetPrivateProfileSectionNamesA error checking (Coverity)

[Alexandre Julliard]

Dan Kegel  writes:
> AJ wrote:
> > Marcus Meissner <marcus at jet.franken.de> writes:
> > > buffer and size need to be either 0 at the same time or not,
> > > otherwise this breaks up. Windows is inconsistent (either crashes
> > > or returns invalids), so we can just add checking.
> >
> > If Windows crashes we don't need extra checks. Just tell Coverity that
> > crashing is allowed here.
>
> If later versions of Windows return INVALID_PARAMETER,
> wouldn't it be ok for Wine to do so rather than crashing?
> In other words, isn't it ok to emulate the 'best' behaved
> version of windows in cases like this, rather than the 'worst'?

Crashing is the best behavior. Adding parameter checks all over the
place only hides bugs.

[PATCH] kernel32: GetPrivateProfileSectionNamesA error checking (Coverity)

[Dan Kegel]

On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 7:21 AM, Alexandre Julliard  wrote:
> Crashing is the best behavior. Adding parameter checks all over the
> place only hides bugs.

I keep forgetting that crashing is good sometimes :-)