On Tuesday, 19 September 2006 at 1:11, Dennis Schridde wrote:
> Am Dienstag, 19. September 2006 00:39 schrieb Christian Ohm:
> > OK, this might work. Please check before applying, as I might have been
> > too tired to get the pointer stuff correct.
> I had a quick look at the patch and wondered why you pass a pointer to a
> pointer to RETSTACK_TYPE to PopRetStack()
Because I wanted to modify the pointer itself, so I need a pointer to
the pointer.
> The you set the given pointer to point to a value in the stack.
> Is that sane? What if the value gets overwritten for some reason?
It's just to get the values that are on the stack at that time, the
pointer isn't used later.
> And why didn't you just copy the entry like it was done before?
Too tired to think straight.
> I attached another patch which does it like I would have done it.
Thinking about it, I would have done the same.
> -BOOL PopRetStack(UDWORD *psVal)
> +BOOL PopRetStack(RETSTACK_TYPE *psVal)
> {
> - if(retStackPos < 0)
> + if (retStackPos < 0)
> {
> debug( LOG_ERROR, "PopRetStack: retStackPos < 0");
> return FALSE;
> }
>
> - *psVal = retStack[retStackPos];
> + *psVal = retStack[retStackPos--];
The only thing I'm not sure about is this. Is the whole struct copied in
this case? (I'm too lazy to look it up right now.)
--
Love means never having to say you're sorry.
-- Eric Segal, "Love Story"
That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.
-- Ryan O'Neill, "What's Up Doc?"
_______________________________________________
Warzone-dev mailing list
Warzone-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
