Laurent wrote:
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 2:32 AM, Dan Kegel <dank(a)kegel.com> wrote:
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 5:04 PM, Laurent Vromman <laurent(a)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