Hi,
On Tue, Nov 25, 2003 at 03:24:02PM -0800, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> Shachar Shemesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > What do you mean by "delayed imports". When I defined, proper, the
> > entire spec as actual functions, I got conflicts when I tried to
> > define GetProcAddress. In any cas
Shachar Shemesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What do you mean by "delayed imports". When I defined, proper, the
> entire spec as actual functions, I got conflicts when I tried to
> define GetProcAddress. In any case, even then I'm going to need to
> call GetProcAddress (yes, I guess I can use the
Alexandre Julliard wrote:
Shachar Shemesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
My existing patch is in DOSFS_GetFullName, which is called by
GetFileAttributes. Another thing, however, is that I'm begining to
doubt whether it is indeed used for what you said it is. It seems that
calling "GetFileAttribut
Shachar Shemesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> My existing patch is in DOSFS_GetFullName, which is called by
> GetFileAttributes. Another thing, however, is that I'm begining to
> doubt whether it is indeed used for what you said it is. It seems that
> calling "GetFileAttributesW" on Windows 98 ret
Alexandre Julliard wrote:
Shachar Shemesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I'll send a patch, then.
Note that this needs a general solution. Please don't just add a
special case in GetFileAttributes.
My existing patch is in DOSFS_GetFullName, which is called by
GetFileAttributes. Another t
Shachar Shemesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'll send a patch, then.
Note that this needs a general solution. Please don't just add a
special case in GetFileAttributes.
> I already have a plan for doing that. Unfortunetly, it's not a nice
> one. Basically, it means changing unicows.spec.c afte
Alexandre Julliard wrote:
It seems to be a way to detect NT/Win95, I suspect Win95 returns a
different error code in that case. Using GetVersion() would of course
have been too easy...
And that, after they DO call "GetVersion", and do keep a variable
telling whether it's NT or not. Oh well.
W
Shachar Shemesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It appears that applications using unicows will not work in NT mode on
> wine unless the attached patch is applied. Unicows' init calls
> "GetFileAttributesW" with "???.???". It expects, if it fails, to get
> error code 123 (ERROR_INVALID_NAME), otherw
Alexandre Julliard wrote:
"Rolf Kalbermatter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
My tests show that RemoveDirectory just as CreateDirectory rejects all
paths which contain one of the wildcards ": * ? \" < > |" with error 123
completely independent where that character occurs (not just in the path
ele
> Yes, because under Unix you can actually create files that contain
> wildcards, so it should be possible to access them. We just need to
> prevent the Windows app itself from creating them.
Interesting. What about CopyFile and MoveFile then? CopyFile creates
a new file, so following your logic
"Rolf Kalbermatter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> My tests show that RemoveDirectory just as CreateDirectory rejects all
> paths which contain one of the wildcards ": * ? \" < > |" with error 123
> completely independent where that character occurs (not just in the path
> element which is created)
On Friday 21 November 2003 09:43, Rolf Kalbermatter wrote:
> I would actually agree with Alexandre here, but W2K at least behaves
> differently.
> My tests show that RemoveDirectory just as CreateDirectory rejects all
> paths which contain one of the wildcards ": * ? \" < > |" with error 123
> com
Alexandre Julliard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > As for the invalid characters, [Create|Remove]File[A|W] only check
> > for '?', '*', which I just copied for [Create|Remove]Directory[A|W].
> > I take it you will accept a patch that also extends the checks in
> > [Create|Remove]File*?
>
> Yes, a
Hans Leidekker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But then the other parameter check is redundant as well:
>
> if (!path || !*path)
> ...
>
> Should I remove that one from CreateDirectoryA? This is done
> in other places too by the way. Should I remove those as well?
Those that are not needed yes;
On Tuesday 18 November 2003 21:17, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> > Changelog:
> > - Reject wildcards in directory names
>
> There's no need to check in both A and W functions since the A one
> calls the W one anyway. Also you should only check the part of the
> fi
On Tue, 18 Nov 2003, Francois Gouget wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Nov 2003, Hans Leidekker wrote:
> > I have looked into this a bit more and I think your confusion
> > stems from the fact that you run 'make test', which doesn't
> > run tests marked 'todo_wine'.
>
> This is incorrect. 'make test' runs all t
Hans Leidekker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Changelog:
> - Reject wildcards in directory names
There's no need to check in both A and W functions since the A one
calls the W one anyway. Also you should only check the part of the
filename that is actually being created, and t
On Tue, 18 Nov 2003, Hans Leidekker wrote:
> On Monday 17 November 2003 18:47, Hans Leidekker wrote:
>
> > > Which conformance tests fail currently? I don't see any problems with
> > > the kernel DLL tests right at the moment, which is somewhat
> > > disconcerting.
>
> [sorry for those repeated m
On Monday 17 November 2003 18:47, Hans Leidekker wrote:
> > Which conformance tests fail currently? I don't see any problems with
> > the kernel DLL tests right at the moment, which is somewhat
> > disconcerting.
[sorry for those repeated mails, I received an error message from
my mailclient an
On Monday 17 November 2003 16:34, Paul Millar wrote:
> Which conformance tests fail currently? I don't see any problems with the
> kernel DLL tests right at the moment, which is somewhat disconcerting.
These are the errors I got before my patch:
directory.c:199: Test failed: CreateDirectoryA w
On Monday 17 November 2003 16:34, Paul Millar wrote:
> Which conformance tests fail currently? I don't see any problems with the
> kernel DLL tests right at the moment, which is somewhat disconcerting.
These are the errors I got before my patch:
directory.c:199: Test failed: CreateDirectoryA w
Hi Hans,
Which conformance tests fail currently? I don't see any problems with the
kernel DLL tests right at the moment, which is somewhat disconcerting.
I do see a problem with the listbox tests (in the user dll tests).
There's also various bugs in pipe tests (under kernel) that mysteriously
22 matches
Mail list logo
