Sounds good, but in that case shouldn't I also change the one for UINT to something like ~(UINT)0?
Benjamin Alexandre Julliard wrote: > "Benjamin Arai" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> + case VT_I1: if (V_I1(left) == -1) resvt = VT_NULL; break; >> + case VT_UI1: if (V_UI1(left) == 0xff) resvt = VT_NULL; break; >> + case VT_I2: if (V_I2(left) == -1) resvt = VT_NULL; break; >> + case VT_UI2: if (V_UI2(left) == 0xffff) resvt = VT_NULL; break; >> + case VT_INT: if (V_INT(left) == -1) resvt = VT_NULL; break; >> + case VT_UINT: if (V_UINT(left) == 0xffffffff) resvt = VT_NULL; >> break; >> + case VT_I4: if (V_I4(left) == -1) resvt = VT_NULL; break; >> + case VT_UI4: if (V_UI4(left) == 0xffffffff) resvt = VT_NULL; >> break; >> + case VT_I8: if (V_I8(left) == -1) resvt = VT_NULL; break; >> + case VT_UI8: if (V_UI8(left) == 0xffffffff) resvt = VT_NULL; >> break; > > Shouldn't the last one be something like ~(ULONGLONG)0 instead of > 0xffffffff? >
