Re: [4/8] WineD3D: Destroying the resource frees all private data

[H. Verbeet]

On 10/05/07, Stefan Dösinger <stefan(a)codeweavers.com> wrote:
> -        }
> +        };
> Any particular reason for this change?
> +    if (Flags & WINED3DSPD_IUNKNOWN) {
> +        if(SizeOfData != 4) {
> +            WARN("IUnknown data with size %d, returning WINED3DERR_INVALIDCALL\n", SizeOfData);
> +            return WINED3DERR_INVALIDCALL;
> This looks rather questionable to me. Are you making an assumption
> about the size of a pointer here or is 4 some magic constant?
> -        list_add_tail(&This->resource.privateData, &data->entry);
> -        return WINED3D_OK;
> -
> ...
> +    list_init(&data->entry);
> +    list_add_tail(&This->resource.privateData, &data->entry);
>
> return WINED3D_OK;
> Is the added list_init() intentional here? Looks redundant to me, if
> you're doing a list_add_tail() right afterwards anyway.

[4/8] WineD3D: Destroying the resource frees all private data

[Stefan Dösinger]

Am Donnerstag 10 Mai 2007 22:33 schrieb H. Verbeet:
> On 10/05/07, Stefan Dösinger <stefan(a)codeweavers.com> wrote:
> > -        }
> > +        };
>
> Any particular reason for this change?
> I don't think so. Must have slipped in accidentally.
> > +    if (Flags & WINED3DSPD_IUNKNOWN) {
> > +        if(SizeOfData != 4) {
> > +            WARN("IUnknown data with size %d, returning
> > WINED3DERR_INVALIDCALL\n", SizeOfData); +            return
> > WINED3DERR_INVALIDCALL;
>
> This looks rather questionable to me. Are you making an assumption
> about the size of a pointer here or is 4 some magic constant?
> Indeed :-/ I just hardcoded 4 as sizeof IUnknown * thoughlessly. We should 
> test that on 64 bit machines, but I guess that sizeof(IUnknown *) is more 
> correct. Does anyone have a 64 bit windows set up to test that?