Paul Vriens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > It's just that I'm going through a lot of the Coverity reports. A great > deal of them mention NULL parameters passed. That why I started writing > these checks and found that we're not always a 100% in line with M$.
Yes, but that's deliberate, we don't want to add too many checks. Windows in many cases uses exception handlers, but that's quite expensive without compiler support. > I will try and not change 'real' code to check that much for NULLs but > couldn't we leave the test cases (with todo_wine of course) for > documentation sake? If you have written them already, sure, but we don't want to systematically add test cases for NULL. -- Alexandre Julliard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
