This fixes one of the regression with ShellExecute when using a full patch and an executable without an extension.
From: Alistair Leslie-Hughes leslie_alistair@hotmail.com
--- dlls/shell32/shlexec.c | 8 +++++++- 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/dlls/shell32/shlexec.c b/dlls/shell32/shlexec.c index 828c7168a34..f49ed3d0354 100644 --- a/dlls/shell32/shlexec.c +++ b/dlls/shell32/shlexec.c @@ -677,7 +677,13 @@ static UINT SHELL_FindExecutable(LPCWSTR lpPath, LPCWSTR lpFile, LPCWSTR lpVerb, /* The file was found in lpPath or one of the directories in the system-wide search path */ } else - xlpFile[0] = '\0'; + { + /* Checking for an unix application */ + if(PathFindOnPathW(xlpFile, search_paths)) + lstrcpyW(lpResult, xlpFile); + else + xlpFile[0] = '\0'; + } }
attribs = GetFileAttributesW(lpFile);
Hi,
It looks like your patch introduced the new failures shown below. Please investigate and fix them before resubmitting your patch. If they are not new, fixing them anyway would help a lot. Otherwise please ask for the known failures list to be updated.
The tests also ran into some preexisting test failures. If you know how to fix them that would be helpful. See the TestBot job for the details:
The full results can be found at: https://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=147764
Your paranoid android.
=== debian11b (64 bit WoW report) ===
kernel32: comm.c:1586: Test failed: Unexpected time 1001, expected around 500
wshom.ocx: wshom.c:287: Test failed: Unexpected retval 0.