Laurent wrote:
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 2:32 AM, Dan Kegel <d...@kegel.com> wrote:
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 5:04 PM, Laurent Vromman <laur...@vromman.org> wrote:
- pStrokes = HeapAlloc(GetProcessHeap(), 0, numStrokes *
sizeof(GdiPath*));
- pStrokes[0] = HeapAlloc(GetProcessHeap(), 0, sizeof(GdiPath));
- PATH_InitGdiPath(pStrokes[0]);
- pStrokes[0]->pFlags = HeapAlloc(GetProcessHeap(), 0,
pPath->numEntriesUsed * sizeof(INT));
- pStrokes[0]->pPoints = HeapAlloc(GetProcessHeap(), 0,
pPath->numEntriesUsed * sizeof(POINT));
- pStrokes[0]->numEntriesUsed = 0;
+ pStrokes = NULL;
...
Wait, wouldn't it be simpler to keep the initial alloc, as in the attachment?
Yes, it would be. The fact is that makes a zero byte size HeapAlloc.
I'm not really sure how and why it is supposed to work in this case,
so I prefered to removed it. MSDN didn't help me to understand what is
a pointer to a zero byte size memory area, and how HeapReAlloc is
supposed to react then.
If you say it's ok, you're solution is way better.
pStrokes = HeapAlloc(GetProcessHeap(), 0, numStrokes *
sizeof(GdiPath*)); can even be replaced by pStrokes =
HeapAlloc(GetProcessHeap(), 0, 0);
I think it will be optimized automatically to that, but call it such way
is confusing,
if it's necessary to allocate a zero sized area to make next
HeapReAlloc() succeed let's specify it explicitly.
It's useless to call sizeof if
numStrokes is 0.
It's not a call, it's compile time calculated.
If you are ok with all that, I can make a new patch based on your proposal.
- Dan
Laurent
