I asked Alexandre what http://source.winehq.org/patches/data/88732 needed before it could be reviewed. He said it needed to adapt to the recent parameter checking changes. I see that when he took my patch http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-patches/attachments/20120728/bea2581d/a... and committed it as http://source.winehq.org/git/wine.git/patch/49560458426cf25b6a36bbf9bad35aa7... he could remove a few assignments to *MSVCRT__errno() because MSVCRT_CHECK_PMT now does that for you.
But msvcr100's wmemmove_s/wmemcpy_s are different; they do not change errno. Tests in my patch confirm this. So changing msvcr100's CHECK_PMT macro to assign to errno doesn't seem appropriate.
So, is there still anything that needs changing?
Dan Kegel dank@kegel.com writes:
I asked Alexandre what http://source.winehq.org/patches/data/88732 needed before it could be reviewed. He said it needed to adapt to the recent parameter checking changes. I see that when he took my patch http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-patches/attachments/20120728/bea2581d/a... and committed it as http://source.winehq.org/git/wine.git/patch/49560458426cf25b6a36bbf9bad35aa7... he could remove a few assignments to *MSVCRT__errno() because MSVCRT_CHECK_PMT now does that for you.
But msvcr100's wmemmove_s/wmemcpy_s are different; they do not change errno. Tests in my patch confirm this. So changing msvcr100's CHECK_PMT macro to assign to errno doesn't seem appropriate.
They do set errno, the tests are broken. Check how it's done in msvcr90.
On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 1:29 AM, Alexandre Julliard julliard@winehq.org wrote:
But msvcr100's wmemmove_s/wmemcpy_s are different; they do not change errno. Tests in my patch confirm this.
They do set errno, the tests are broken.
Aw, foo. Thanks, resent with fixes.
-
Alexandre Julliard -
Dan Kegel