André Hentschel <[email protected]> wrote: > + for (r = 0; r < 0xFFFF; r++) > + { > + if (ignorewchar(r)) > + { > + markerW[2] = r; > + todo_wine > + { > + ok(!lstrcmpW(markerW, nomarkerW), "expected the character > 0x%x to be ignored within the string\n", r); > + ok(CompareStringW(LOCALE_SYSTEM_DEFAULT, 0, markerW, -1, > nomarkerW, -1) == 2, > + "expected the character 0x%x to be ignored within the > string\n", r); > + ok(CompareStringW(LOCALE_SYSTEM_DEFAULT, > NORM_IGNORECASE|NORM_IGNORENONSPACE|NORM_IGNORESYMBOLS| > + > SORT_STRINGSORT|NORM_IGNOREKANATYPE|NORM_IGNOREWIDTH|LOCALE_USE_CP_ACP, > + markerW, -1, nomarkerW, -1) == 2, > + "expected the character 0x%x to be ignored within the > string\n", r); > + } > + } > + }
This is not better, my comments for your previous attempts still apply. In addition to those: 1. if you decided to use some specific flags in the CompareString call, you may want to test other variants of them. Using LOCALE_USE_CP_ACP in a W version of the API doesn't look useful. 2. return value of CompareString has symblic names. -- Dmitry.
