Not really, it's up to you too. This is essentially a style-only
change. Alexandre generally frowns on these, but reluctantly accepts
them if the existing style is horrible, or if you're actively involved
in the code being modified. Neither appears to be true here. This is
a helpful hint to a
It makes the code use one less variable. I don't see how is this dubious,
but I understand that it's trivial.
Yes, at the cost of potentially less readability, or, depending on the
compile settings, a little more difficulty in checking whether the
function succeeded. I don't see that the
Hi Amine,
Hi Juan,
this patch has no functional benefit. For example,
-HRESULT hr;
TRACE("\n");
-hr = SMTPTransport_ParseResponse(This, pBuffer,&response);
-if (FAILED(hr))
+if (FAILED(SMTPTransport_ParseResponse(This, pBuffer,&response)))
This has the dubious ben
Hey Chip,
I think he's using Clang. I've seen him on the LLVM bugzilla. He's
waiting for someone (e.g. me) to fix the bugs that prevent Wine from
being compiled with Clang.
That's right.
BTW, if and when you find a bug using Clang, be sure to put
"(Clang/LLVM)" in the title--or at least menti
Out of curiosity, what tool are you using to find these bugs?
Clang.
WBR,
Amine.
2009/12/16 James Hawkins :
> Also, you should never pass a function to a macro. What if FAILED
> were defined as:
>
> FAILED(x) (x & MASK1) | (x & MASK2)
>
> ?
>
Then the macro is broken, although admittedly most macros probably are.
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 11:09 AM, Juan Lang wrote:
> Hi Amine,
>
> this patch has no functional benefit. For example,
> - HRESULT hr;
>
> TRACE("\n");
>
> - hr = SMTPTransport_ParseResponse(This, pBuffer, &response);
> - if (FAILED(hr))
> + if (FAILED(SMTPTransport_ParseResponse(T
> Well, that's entirely up to you guys ;)
Not really, it's up to you too. This is essentially a style-only
change. Alexandre generally frowns on these, but reluctantly accepts
them if the existing style is horrible, or if you're actively involved
in the code being modified. Neither appears to b
> It makes the code use one less variable. I don't see how is this dubious,
> but I understand that it's trivial.
Yes, at the cost of potentially less readability, or, depending on the
compile settings, a little more difficulty in checking whether the
function succeeded. I don't see that the bene
Hi Amine,
this patch has no functional benefit. For example,
-HRESULT hr;
TRACE("\n");
-hr = SMTPTransport_ParseResponse(This, pBuffer, &response);
-if (FAILED(hr))
+if (FAILED(SMTPTransport_ParseResponse(This, pBuffer, &response)))
This has the dubious benefit of removing
Austin English wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 12:28 PM, Amine Khaldi wrote:
>> WBR,
>> Amine Khaldi.
>
> Out of curiosity, what tool are you using to find these bugs?
>
I think he's using Clang. I've seen him on the LLVM bugzilla. He's
waiting for someone (e.g. me) to fix the bugs that prevent
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 12:28 PM, Amine Khaldi wrote:
> WBR,
> Amine Khaldi.
Out of curiosity, what tool are you using to find these bugs?
--
-Austin
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 12:28 PM, Amine Khaldi wrote:
> WBR,
> Amine Khaldi.
Out of curiosity, what tool are you using to find these bugs?
--
-Austin
13 matches
Mail list logo
