> Any API may fail in some way, but that would be ridiculous to pollute
> the whole Wine source tree with asserts. As I've said, IMO it's better
> to have a test case for the API which will detect broken behaviour
> instead.
I agree that we shouldn't have asserts across DLLs. While we may
"know"
"Dan Hipschman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But I like the assert. You haven't really given me a reason to take it
> out. Why is it inappropriate? It's use here seems perfectly reasonable
> to me. I'm calling NtQuerySecurityObject in such a way that I'm
> expecting it to fail, and if it doesn
On Wed, Aug 06, 2008 at 02:21:44PM +0900, Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
> "Dan Hipschman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >+#include
> ...
> >DWORD WINAPI GetSecurityInfo(
> >HANDLE hObject, SE_OBJECT_TYPE ObjectType,
> >@@ -2718,8 +2735,44 @@ DWORD WINAPI GetSecurityInfo(
> >PSECURITY_DESCRIPTO
"Dan Hipschman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> +#include
...
> DWORD WINAPI GetSecurityInfo(
> HANDLE hObject, SE_OBJECT_TYPE ObjectType,
> @@ -2718,8 +2735,44 @@ DWORD WINAPI GetSecurityInfo(
> PSECURITY_DESCRIPTOR *ppSecurityDescriptor
> )
> {
> - FIXME("stub!\n");
> - return ERROR_BAD_
