Re: [PATCH 1/6] lz32/tests: Test more last errors set by LZOpenFile[AW].

[James Hawkins]

On 10/10/06, Saulius Krasuckas  wrote:
> @@ -148,6 +149,8 @@ static void test_LZOpenFileA_existing_co
>         test.szPathName, expected);
>      LZClose(file);
>    } else { /* Win9x */
> - ok(GetLastError() == ERROR_FILE_NOT_FOUND,
> -
>   "GetLastError() returns %ld\n", GetLastError());
> ok(test.cBytes == 0xA5,
>       "LZOpenFileA set test.cBytes to %d\n", test.cBytes);
>    ok(test.nErrCode == ERROR_FILE_NOT_FOUND,

GetLastError returns a DWORD, so these formats need to be %d, not %ld.
 There is already a big effort to clean these up, so we don't need to
introduce more.

[PATCH 1/6] lz32/tests: Test more last errors set by LZOpenFile[AW].

[Michael Stefaniuc]

James Hawkins wrote:
> On 10/10/06, Saulius Krasuckas  wrote:
> > @@ -148,6 +149,8 @@ static void test_LZOpenFileA_existing_co
> >         test.szPathName, expected);
> >      LZClose(file);
> >    } else { /* Win9x */
> > - ok(GetLastError() == ERROR_FILE_NOT_FOUND,
> > -
> >   "GetLastError() returns %ld\n", GetLastError());
> > ok(test.cBytes == 0xA5,
> >       "LZOpenFileA set test.cBytes to %d\n", test.cBytes);
> >    ok(test.nErrCode == ERROR_FILE_NOT_FOUND,
>
> GetLastError returns a DWORD, so these formats need to be %d, not %ld.
> There is already a big effort to clean these up, so we don't need to
> introduce more.

Yes, but lz32 isn't converted yet so he is correct. I didn't do lz32 as
he was working on it and I didn't want to introduce conflicts.

bye
    michael

[PATCH 1/6] lz32/tests: Test more last errors set by LZOpenFile[AW].

[Saulius Krasuckas]

* On Tue, 10 Oct 2006, Michael Stefaniuc wrote:
> - James Hawkins wrote:
> > > @@ -148,6 +149,8 @@ static void test_LZOpenFileA_existing_co
> > >         test.szPathName, expected);
> > >      LZClose(file);
> > >    } else { /* Win9x */
> > > - ok(GetLastError() == ERROR_FILE_NOT_FOUND,
> > > -
> > >   "GetLastError() returns %ld\n", GetLastError());
> >
> > GetLastError returns a DWORD, so these formats need to be %d, not %ld. 
> > There is already a big effort to clean these up, so we don't need to 
> > introduce more.
>
> Yes, but lz32 isn't converted yet so he is correct. I didn't do lz32 as 
> he was working on it and I didn't want to introduce conflicts.

Thank you guys.  My compiler or my brain-cache probably is out of date.  
If the patchs won't get in during nearest time, feel free to convert lz32 
altogether :)