> Juan's proposed version will cause a memory leak / valgrind warning.
Not at all. I'm proposing stack pointers, not HeapAlloc'ed versions.
See for example how I fixed this for the SIP tests:
http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-cvs/2008-July/045766.html
--Juan
Juan's proposed version will cause a memory leak / valgrind warning.
2008/9/28, Reece Dunn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 2008/9/28 Maarten Lankhorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Hi Juan,
>>
>> 2008/9/28, Juan Lang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>> Hi Reece, I'm not nak'ing your patch. I just wanted to point out a
>>
2008/9/28 Maarten Lankhorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hi Juan,
>
> 2008/9/28, Juan Lang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Hi Reece, I'm not nak'ing your patch. I just wanted to point out a simpler
>> way:
>>
>> -static const char *printGUID(const GUID *guid)
>> +static char *printGUID(const GUID *guid)
>> {
>
Hi Juan,
2008/9/28, Juan Lang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hi Reece, I'm not nak'ing your patch. I just wanted to point out a simpler
> way:
>
> -static const char *printGUID(const GUID *guid)
> +static char *printGUID(const GUID *guid)
> {
> -static char guidSTR[39];
> +char *guidSTR = HeapAl
Hi Reece, I'm not nak'ing your patch. I just wanted to point out a simpler way:
-static const char *printGUID(const GUID *guid)
+static char *printGUID(const GUID *guid)
{
-static char guidSTR[39];
+char *guidSTR = HeapAlloc(GetProcessHeap(), 0, 39);
Rather than allocating the necessary
