Dmitry Timoshkov <dmi...@baikal.ru> writes: > + for (i = 0; i < sizeof(bstr)/sizeof(bstr[0]); i++) > + { > + INTERNAL_BSTR *data = Get(bstr[i]); > + > + for (j = 0; j < i; j++) str[j] = '0' + i % 10; > + > + if (data->dwLen == i * sizeof(WCHAR)) > + good_length_entries++; > + if (!memcmp(data->szString, str, i * sizeof(WCHAR))) > + good_string_entries++; > + } > + > + trace("good_length_entries %d, good_string_entries %d\n", > good_length_entries, good_string_entries); > + ok(good_length_entries >= 95, "good_length_entries %d out of 256\n", > good_length_entries); > +todo_wine > + ok(good_string_entries >= 190, "good_string_entries %d out of 256\n", > good_string_entries);
That doesn't seem very useful. What use case would there be for an app to rely on some random 75% of its strings to remain valid? -- Alexandre Julliard julli...@winehq.org