https://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=11509 shows failures and
crashes, but the nearly identical
https://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=11510 does not. (The latter one
just adds a call to GetProcessMemoryInfo() in the xyz() logging function.)
And the failure shown by the first patch
+OleInitialize(NULL);
Any particular reason you're using this instead of CoInitialize? I
don't think there's anything wrong with it, but CoInitialize is more
common.
+todo_wine
+ok(cat==KF_CATEGORY_FIXED, "invalid folder category: %d\n", cat);
You'd be using cat unini
Ok, I didnt know and that changes everything. From now on I'll keep
that in mind.
Sorry for the noise.
2011/6/4 Vitaliy Margolen :
> On 06/04/2011 01:32 PM, Lucas Zawacki wrote:
>>>
>>> Sometimes apps depend on the crash. Since your change comes with a
>>> test case, it looks reasonable to me, a
On 06/04/2011 03:02 PM, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
Resending: This really looks like a straightforward bug fix and the
current code definitely wrong???
The difference between two pointers (of the same type) is the number
of elements, not the number of bytes. Thus the code below was way
incorrect,
2011/6/4 Dan Kegel :
> (Oddly, windows xp's cmd doesn't seem to set errorlevel
> if you use rmdir on a nonexistent directory...)
Yep. Exactly the same in w2k... yet another Windows oddity...
