Christoph von Wittich wrote:
As Dmitry wrote about this, I will add the comment that this does not
look like the proper way to fix this problem. The proper way is to keep
the pointer from overflowing in the first place and that would be to
place a check where it is set and updated to either go ne
On Mo, 2009-06-29 at 16:49 +0900, Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
> "Christoph von Wittich" wrote:
>
> > + if (*pcbProvName > INT_MAX)
> > + *pcbProvName = INT_MAX;
>
> In which way WideCharToMultiByte is broken? It always helps to provide
> an explanation and if possible a test case.
While working on
"Christoph von Wittich" wrote:
When you would have a look at the winetests you would have noticed two
failures about passing in negative values...
Which winetests should I look at? The WideCharToMultiByte ones? Then
the patch is wrong. That's unusual to expect that somebody reads your
mind.
"Christoph von Wittich" wrote:
+ if (*pcbProvName > INT_MAX)
+ *pcbProvName = INT_MAX;
In which way WideCharToMultiByte is broken? It always helps to provide
an explanation and if possible a test case.
--
Dmitry.
