2009/2/25 Paul Vriens :
> Nicolas Le Cam wrote:
>
> +
> + /* We have a dll that cannot be found through
> LoadLibraryExA.
> This
> + * is the case for .NET provided dll's. We will add the
> directory
> + * where the dll resides to t
Nicolas Le Cam wrote:
+
+/* We have a dll that cannot be found through
LoadLibraryExA.
This
+ * is the case for .NET provided dll's. We will add the
directory
+ * where the dll resides to the PATH variable when dealing
with
>>> +
>>> + /* We have a dll that cannot be found through
>>> LoadLibraryExA.
>>> This
>>> + * is the case for .NET provided dll's. We will add the
>>> directory
>>> + * where the dll resides to the PATH variable when dealing
>>> with
>>> + * the tests
Nicolas Le Cam wrote:
> Hi Paul, minor comments :
>
>> +static void append_path( const char *path)
>> +{
>> +char *newpath;
>> +
>> +newpath = xmalloc(strlen(curpath) + 1 + strlen(path) + 1);
>> +strcpy(newpath, curpath);
>> +strcat(newpath, ";");
>> +strcat(newpath, path);
>>
Hi Paul, minor comments :
> programs/winetest/main.c | 60
> +-
> 1 files changed, 59 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/programs/winetest/main.c b/programs/winetest/main.c
> index 74a4307..58e520b 100644
> --- a/programs/winetest/main.c
>
Nicolas Le Cam wrote:
> 2009/2/24 Paul Vriens :
>> Hi,
>>
>> This makes sure that if we have a dll that's only provided via .NET it can
>> still
>> be found. Now both our extraction (and the generation of the subtest list)
>> and
>> the real test will find the dll.
>>
>> The downside (and hence thi
2009/2/24 Paul Vriens :
> Hi,
>
> This makes sure that if we have a dll that's only provided via .NET it can
> still
> be found. Now both our extraction (and the generation of the subtest list)
> and
> the real test will find the dll.
>
> The downside (and hence this is a bit hackish) is that we ex
