Robert Reif <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> +/* Use the first version for strict compatibility with Microsoft */
> +/* #define WINMM_IsBadWritePtr(x,y) IsBadWritePtr((x), (y)) */
> +#define WINMM_IsBadWritePtr(x,y) ((x)==NULL)
This is very confusing, if we don't check the pointer we shouldn't
have
I can see the evils of using IsBadWritePtr now but it seems that Microsoft
does use it in their winmm implementation and to be compatible, wine
probably
should too. I think the patch is valid.
I'd rather think unless we find an app which absolutely requires it,
we'd better leave it as it is (and
Mike Hearn wrote:
On Sun, 06 Jun 2004 16:15:43 -0400, Robert Reif wrote:
Interesting read. I would have thought Microsoft would have
checked if the memory range was already mapped and had the
proper access permission rather than just accessing it and catching
the page fault. The whole point of
On Sun, 06 Jun 2004 16:15:43 -0400, Robert Reif wrote:
> Interesting read. I would have thought Microsoft would have
> checked if the memory range was already mapped and had the
> proper access permission rather than just accessing it and catching
> the page fault. The whole point of the check is
Robert Shearman wrote:
On Sun, 2004-06-06 at 19:26, Robert Reif wrote:
Not a real program but Microsoft's API checking programs do
try non NULL bad pointers and expect an error return rather
than a program crash.
Are you saying checking a good pointer can cause problems?
No, checking a bad
On Sun, 2004-06-06 at 19:26, Robert Reif wrote:
> Not a real program but Microsoft's API checking programs do
> try non NULL bad pointers and expect an error return rather
> than a program crash.
>
> Are you saying checking a good pointer can cause problems?
No, checking a bad pointer can cause p
On Sun, 2004-06-06 at 17:27, Robert Reif wrote:
> Do better check on pointers to memory to be written to.
...
> +if (IsBadWritePtr(lpCaps, uSize))
...
Does a program depend on these checks?
We should only put them in w
