Because it causes havoc on our testbot. Question to you: Why should we? We are replicating "normal" Windows behavior, not Windows debugging code.
Am 11.10.2014 18:45, schrieb Alex Ionescu: > Windows does. Why shouldn't we? It's a non-documented API. > > Best regards, > Alex Ionescu > > On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 1:52 AM, <tkreu...@svn.reactos.org > <mailto:tkreu...@svn.reactos.org>> wrote: > > Author: tkreuzer > Date: Sat Oct 11 08:52:33 2014 > New Revision: 64658 > > URL: http://svn.reactos.org/svn/reactos?rev=64658&view=rev > Log: > [NTDLL] > Don't assert that the caller of exported APIs passes correct > parameters. > > Modified: > trunk/reactos/dll/ntdll/ldr/ldrapi.c > > Modified: trunk/reactos/dll/ntdll/ldr/ldrapi.c > URL: > > http://svn.reactos.org/svn/reactos/trunk/reactos/dll/ntdll/ldr/ldrapi.c?rev=64658&r1=64657&r2=64658&view=diff > > ============================================================================== > --- trunk/reactos/dll/ntdll/ldr/ldrapi.c [iso-8859-1] > (original) > +++ trunk/reactos/dll/ntdll/ldr/ldrapi.c [iso-8859-1] Sat > Oct 11 08:52:33 2014 > @@ -209,9 +209,6 @@ > /* A normal failure */ > return STATUS_INVALID_PARAMETER_3; > } > - > - /* Do or Do Not. There is no Try */ > - ASSERT((Disposition != NULL) || !(Flags & > LDR_LOCK_LOADER_LOCK_FLAG_TRY_ONLY)); > > /* If the flag is set, make sure we have a valid pointer to > use */ > if ((Flags & LDR_LOCK_LOADER_LOCK_FLAG_TRY_ONLY) && > !(Disposition)) > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Ros-dev mailing list > Ros-dev@reactos.org > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
_______________________________________________ Ros-dev mailing list Ros-dev@reactos.org http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
