"James Hawkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I'm not sure how you feel this should be fixed. Is there a reason we > don't have tests for ntdll/loader.c? If not, I'd like add some tests > for LdrLoadDll.
We don't have tests for it because apps don't use LdrLoadDll, so testing LoadLibraryEx should be enough. Of course if you have an app that depends on a specific behavior of LdrLoadDll then this should be tested. The todo in your test is because builtin dlls are supposed to get loaded even if the corresponding native file doesn't exist, that's a feature. -- Alexandre Julliard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
