Robert Shearman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In this case, it is. The "Basic" string should be followed by some
> additional data which is parsed later.
Yes, but AFAICS it's still supposed to be a separate token, so you'd
need to check for a token separator. I don't think "Basically" should
be c
Alexandre Julliard wrote:
Robert Shearman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hmm, it seems strncmpiW already does that for me so I'm a little confused:
int strncmpiW( const WCHAR *str1, const WCHAR *str2, int n )
{
int ret = 0;
for ( ; n > 0; n--, str1++, str2++)
if ((ret = to
Robert Shearman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hmm, it seems strncmpiW already does that for me so I'm a little confused:
>> int strncmpiW( const WCHAR *str1, const WCHAR *str2, int n )
>> {
>> int ret = 0;
>> for ( ; n > 0; n--, str1++, str2++)
>> if ((ret = tolowerW(*str1) - tolow
Juan Lang wrote:
Hi Rob,
+static UINT HTTP_DecodeBase64(LPCWSTR base64, LPSTR bin);
Do we really have to keep proliferating base64 implementations? Could you
not implement CryptStringToBinaryW instead? Should be mostly a copy-paste
job..
CryptStringToBinaryW is a lot more complicated t
Alexandre Julliard wrote:
Robert Shearman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
+if (strncmpiW(pszAuthValue, szBasic,
sizeof(szBasic)/sizeof(szBasic[0])-1))
+{
When using strncmp you need to also check that you reached the end of
the first string.
Hmm, it seems strncmpiW a
Hi Rob,
+static UINT HTTP_DecodeBase64(LPCWSTR base64, LPSTR bin);
Do we really have to keep proliferating base64 implementations? Could you
not implement CryptStringToBinaryW instead? Should be mostly a copy-paste
job..
--Juan
___
Robert Shearman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> +if (strncmpiW(pszAuthValue, szBasic,
> sizeof(szBasic)/sizeof(szBasic[0])-1))
> +{
When using strncmp you need to also check that you reached the end of
the first string.
> +/* compare against last character to be set to avoid a
