8 Feb
2017
8 Feb
'17
8:25 a.m.
Jacob Lifshay <programmerjake(a)gmail.com> writes:
The old loop seemed confusing to me and it overestimated the size of the memory to allocate by a large factor. The old loop would need to have about half of it rewritten to fix the size overestimation and a little more for fixing the original bug. If you think it's very important to keep as much of the old code as possible, I can rewrite the patch that way, but I don't think that's necessary.
Please try to fix separate issues as separate patches instead of rewriting everything. The overestimation is very unlikely to be a problem; in fact I'd say that something simple like doubling the incoming size would be better than a complicated calculation. -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.org