Hi,
I dont know about ole32 stuff.
I think we should not remove the stuff, you have just removed.
rather it would be better if there is null check for it, and decrease
reference count.
Thanks,
VJ
PS:
I really dont know about ole32 stuff.
On 11/3/07, Allan Tong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The at
The attached patch should fix the crash in bug #6120, but I'm afraid I
don't understand enough to know if the patch is correct or not. The
code that the patch removes was setting the client site pointer to
NULL. A later dereference on that pointer causes the crash. I guess
I don't understand why
On Sat, 3 Nov 2007, James Hawkins wrote:
> This change is wrong. If you'd actually read what the code intended to
> do instead of just fixing warnings, you'd see that add_streams_to_table
> returns -1 on error.
That's what I am actually doing -- trying to read the code, including all
invocation
James wrote:
> This change is wrong. If you'd actually read what the code intended
> to do instead of just fixing warnings, you'd see that
> add_streams_to_table returns -1 on error.
Yeah, Gerald, I was getting the feeling reading your
patches that you were being too glib about rewriting
code bas
I've updated
http://kegel.com/wine/valgrind/
Today's results are at
http://kegel.com/wine/valgrind/20071103/
The only difference from yesterday is I've added
suppressions for the most common memory leaks,
on the theory that it's easier to see the module-specific
leaks t
On Nov 3, 2007 1:10 PM, Gerald Pfeifer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> While removing the dead code I noticed that we can actually also
> strengthen the const-ness of this function.
>
> Gerald
>
> ChangeLog:
> Remove a check which never could trigger (due to the domain of the
> variable in question) a
dlls/wsock32/socket.c has the following code:
DWORD routeTableSize, numRoutes, ndx, ret;
numRoutes = min(routeTableSize - sizeof(MIB_IPFORWARDTABLE),
0) / sizeof(MIB_IPFORWARDROW) + 1;
The problem here is that both routeTableSize and sizeof(...) are of an
unsigned type,
On Fr, 2007-11-02 at 13:44 +, Robert Shearman wrote:
> > What's the reason of the Parameter "BOOL open_for_write" ?
> >
> > On the other hand, gcc does not warn about that unused Parameter.
"-Wunused" (included in "-Wall") is not enough:
We need "-W" with "-Wunused", but wine requires a lot o
