Dear Juan, Thanks for reviewing!
On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 11:31 PM, Juan Lang <juan.l...@gmail.com> wrote: > It's more in line with most C code to use !memcmp(...) instead of > memcmp(...)==0. I find it easier to scan, anyway, as I've gotten used to ! > comparisons to check equality in memcmp, strcmp, and variants. > I'm glad to change, but the surrounding code use memcmp(...)==0 already, should I change that as well? > Another minor point: it's customary to set last error prior to testing it > when you expect it to have a certain value, e.g.: > + bad_data[cTestData[i].buflen - 1] = ~bad_data[cTestData[i].buflen - > 1]; > + result = CryptDecrypt(hKey, 0, TRUE, 0, bad_data, &dwLen); > + ok(!result, "CryptDecrypt should failed!\n"); > + ok(GetLastError() == NTE_BAD_DATA, "%08x\n", GetLastError()); > > Prior to the result = CryptDecrypt(hKey, ...) line, please add a > SetLastError(0xdeadbeef); that will ensure that the following comparison of > GetLastError() to NTE_BAD_DATA isn't succeeding due to an earlier failure. Good point, thanks, will do that. -- Regards, Qian Hong - http://www.winehq.org