2012/1/25 Nicolas Le Cam <niko.le...@gmail.com>: > 2012/1/25 Francois Gouget <fgou...@free.fr>: >> On Wed, 25 Jan 2012, Detlef Riekenberg wrote: >> >>> On Sun, 2012-01-22 at 19:53 +0100, Henri Verbeet wrote: >>> > On 22 January 2012 19:44, Detlef Riekenberg <wine....@web.de> wrote: >>> > > - if (usage & ~handled) >>> > > + static DWORD reported_once; >>> > > + >>> > > + if (usage & ~(handled | reported_once)) >>> > > + { >>> > > + reported_once |= (usage & ~handled); >>> > > FIXME("Unhandled usage flags %#x.\n", usage & ~handled); >>> > > + } >>> > I don't think so. >>> >>> Sorry, I have no Idea, what objections do you have. >> >> I don't pretend to know what Henry meant but reported_once is not >> initialized. It's probably put into a zero-initialized section by the >> compiler but it looks worrying to me (I believe something like this has >> been debated on the Linux kernel mailing list). >> >> I did not try to check the bit manipulations. >> >> -- >> Francois Gouget <fgou...@free.fr> http://fgouget.free.fr/ >> If you think the whole world revolves around you, >> quit staring at the GPS display while driving. >> >> > > static variables are zero-initialized by default I don't think that's > the problem. Perhaps it's because with such a patch, only the first > unhandled flag will be reported and not others (wich can be of a > different value), so using a bit mask to only report once every > unhandled flags will be better ? > > -- > Nicolas Le Cam
I really shouldn't send mail until I get my third coffee ... sorry for the useless noise. -- Nicolas Le Cam