It isn't obvious (your patch fot ret value). Why are you hiding all codes except E_FAIL? Tests are needed, but I think you're hiding something by this change.
On 10/16/08, Kirill K. Smirnov lich@math.spbu.ru wrote:
This patch fixes gdiplus test failures revealed by patch: [2/3] oleaut32: return correct error code http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-patches/2008-October/063221.html
Sorry, commited patch seems to be right. Still it's better to use hr!=S_OK instead of hr itself I think..
On 10/16/08, Nikolay Sivov bunglehead@gmail.com wrote:
It isn't obvious (your patch fot ret value). Why are you hiding all codes except E_FAIL? Tests are needed, but I think you're hiding something by this change.
On 10/16/08, Kirill K. Smirnov lich@math.spbu.ru wrote:
This patch fixes gdiplus test failures revealed by patch: [2/3] oleaut32: return correct error code http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-patches/2008-October/063221.html
Am Donnerstag, den 16.10.2008, 18:34 +0400 schrieb Nikolay Sivov:
It isn't obvious (your patch fot ret value). Why are you hiding all codes except E_FAIL?
You seem to misread that patch. All it does is return E_FAIL instead of S_OK in the case of a short read. For clarity, the conditional statement might be written as return (hr == S_OK ? E_FAIL : hr);
Regards, Michael Karcher
-
Michael Karcher -
Nikolay Sivov