On 9/13/06, Andrew Talbot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wednesday 13 September 2006 04:22, you wrote:
> Does adding the breaks fix conformance tests?
No, I haven't fixed anything with this patch: it was a neutral one, in that
respect. I just put it in because I perceived that those switch statements
were not relying on any fallthrough, so I thought it good practice to isolate
the cases.
Let's see: your change was
--- a/dlls/cabinet/fci.c 2006-09-12 11:55:48.000000000 +0100
+++ b/dlls/cabinet/fci.c 2006-09-12 23:29:02.000000000 +0100
@@ -454,11 +454,12 @@
switch (cb % 4) {
case 3:
ul |= (((ULONG)(*pb++)) << 16);
+ break;
case 2:
ul |= (((ULONG)(*pb++)) << 8);
+ break;
case 1:
ul |= *pb++;
- default:
break;
}
Offhand that looks like a more serious change than you thought.
You'd better either really understand the code, or
add a conformance test that shows this fixes a bug, IMHO.
- Dan
