On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 18:56, Octavian Voicu wrote:
> 2011/7/7 Frédéric Delanoy :
>> --- a/dlls/msvcrt/tests/file.c
>> +++ b/dlls/msvcrt/tests/file.c
>> @@ -132,21 +132,21 @@ static void test_fileops( void )
>> rewind(file);
>> for (i = 0, c = EOF; i < sizeof(outbuffer); i++)
>
> I
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 19:07, Octavian Voicu wrote:
> 2011/7/7 Frédéric Delanoy :
>> c = outbuffer[sizeof(outbuffer) - 1];
>> ok(ungetc(c, file) == c, "ungetc did not return its input for
>> bufmode=%x\n", bufmodes[bufmode]);
>> ok(!feof(file), "feof after ungetc returned
2011/7/7 Frédéric Delanoy :
> c = outbuffer[sizeof(outbuffer) - 1];
> ok(ungetc(c, file) == c, "ungetc did not return its input for
> bufmode=%x\n", bufmodes[bufmode]);
> ok(!feof(file), "feof after ungetc returned EOF for bufmode=%x\n",
> bufmodes[bufmode]);
> - ok
2011/7/7 Frédéric Delanoy :
> --- a/dlls/msvcrt/tests/file.c
> +++ b/dlls/msvcrt/tests/file.c
> @@ -132,21 +132,21 @@ static void test_fileops( void )
> rewind(file);
> for (i = 0, c = EOF; i < sizeof(outbuffer); i++)
Isn't c = EOF in for initialization also a dead assignment?
Oct
