7 Jul
2006
7 Jul
'06
4:38 p.m.
Paul Vriens <Paul.Vriens(a)xs4all.nl> 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 julliard(a)winehq.org