Re: kernel32: Add tests for LoadLibraryEx

[Alexandre Julliard]

"James Hawkins"  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.