> I ran your tests on win95 and win98 and both have at least the
> function available but as you've stated it's not implemented.
>
> Current approach for dealing with this is for example:
>
> SetLastError(0xdeadbeef);
> ret = ToUnicode(...);
> if (!ret && GetLastError() == ERROR_CALL_NOT_IMPLEMEN
Andre Wisplinghoff wrote:
> Nikolay Sivov wrote:
>> You should use dynamic linking here (GetProcAddress).
>>
>>
> Is this necessary even though the function is there on 9x - returning
> unimplemented - as Paul wrote? I think you would need to do this if
> the function weren't there at all on some
Nikolay Sivov wrote:
> You should use dynamic linking here (GetProcAddress).
>
>
Is this necessary even though the function is there on 9x - returning
unimplemented - as Paul wrote? I think you would need to do this if the
function weren't there at all on some systems.
Best Regards
-- Andre Wisp
Andre Wisplinghoff wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I think my patch [1] shouldn't be applied, because I didn't think about
> older versions of Windows. According to MSDN, ToUnicode has NT 3.1 as a
> minimum, meaning we should test if the function is unimplemented and
> skip the test in this case (Win9x Syst
Andre Wisplinghoff wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I think my patch [1] shouldn't be applied, because I didn't think about
> older versions of Windows. According to MSDN, ToUnicode has NT 3.1 as a
> minimum, meaning we should test if the function is unimplemented and
> skip the test in this case (Win9x Sys
Hello,
I think my patch [1] shouldn't be applied, because I didn't think about
older versions of Windows. According to MSDN, ToUnicode has NT 3.1 as a
minimum, meaning we should test if the function is unimplemented and
skip the test in this case (Win9x Systems). Unfortunately I don't have a
W
