Wolfram Sang wrote:
> Hmm, do you have a pointer for a test verifying how something should
> look like (in contrast to checking a return value)? Was this not
> necessary for LoadImage() in general?
Have a look at gdi32 bitmap tests.
--
Dmitry.
On 6 April 2010 16:42, Wolfram Sang wrote:
>> Besides "?:" is absolutely not readable,
>> putting an explicit 0 there would help a bit.
>
> :D Okay, that proves your point. This is a short from for 'offbits ?
> offbits : size'. Will fix that.
>
I also think that's a gcc extension, in general Wine
Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
> Wolfram Sang wrote:
>
>> +offbits = bmfh->bfOffBits - sizeof(BITMAPFILEHEADER);
>
>> +bits = (char *)info + (offbits ?: size);
>
> The purpose of offbits is not clear.
It has the same purpose as 'offbits' in
BmpFrameDecode_ReadUncompressed() from bmpdecode
Wolfram Sang wrote:
> +offbits = bmfh->bfOffBits - sizeof(BITMAPFILEHEADER);
> +bits = (char *)info + (offbits ?: size);
The purpose of offbits is not clear. Besides "?:" is absolutely not readable,
putting an explicit 0 there would help a bit. Adding a test case wouldn't hurt
eithe
