Gerald Pfeifer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ahhh! A lightbulb goes on. Since this is input from the outside, and
thus completely out of our control, you are worried about overflows, that
is, the sum of the two values (offset and size) being within range, but
not the individual parts.
Is
On Mon, 19 Nov 2007, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
I had expected this comment for a different patch of mine. In
dlls/gdi32/enhmetafile.c we are just reading existing records,
so I'm not sure what you have in mind here?
The records usually come from an external file, so they have to be
Gerald Pfeifer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If we want to add some input checking, I assume you would like to
check that these values are not too large? (They cannot be negative,
so the only range checking we can do is on the upper end.) How should
this look like? Any specific upper bounds
On Sun, 2 Dec 2007, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
I'm aware of that, but the purpose of having these warnings is to spot
bugs, and when you find a bug you have to fix it. Yes, the checks
currently don't work, so they should be made to work, not removed. As
the comment says, you have to check that
On Mon, 19 Nov 2007, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
The members of EMRCREATEDIBPATTERNBRUSHPT are of type DWORD, so
comparing them for = 0 is a noop which always evaluates to true.
Gerald
ChangeLog:
Remove four unnecessary comparisions of DWORD variables for = 0.
Validating the record is not
