Re: advpack: Use the FAILED and SUCCEEDED macros instead of comparing to S_OK or zero.

[Mike McCormack]

James Hawkins wrote:
> -            if ((hr = callback(hinf, buffer, arg)) != S_OK)
> +            if (FAILED(hr = callback(hinf, buffer, arg)))

It's usually a bad idea to do function calls or assignments inside 
macros... in this case it's safe, but sometimes the macro is something like:

#define FAILED(hr) (((hr)>0xf00) && (hr)<0xb00))

then the function would get called twice...

It's even more fun if you do:

FAILED(hr++)

Mike

advpack: Use the FAILED and SUCCEEDED macros instead of comparing to S_OK or zero.

[James Hawkins]

On 5/1/06, Mike McCormack <mike(a)codeweavers.com> wrote:
> James Hawkins wrote:
> > -            if ((hr = callback(hinf, buffer, arg)) != S_OK)
> > +            if (FAILED(hr = callback(hinf, buffer, arg)))
>
> It's usually a bad idea to do function calls or assignments inside
> macros... in this case it's safe, but sometimes the macro is something like:
>
> #define FAILED(hr) (((hr)>0xf00) && (hr)<0xb00))
>
> then the function would get called twice...

Would you accept the patch if I put all results into an hr and then
called FAILED(hr) instead?

--
James Hawkins

advpack: Use the FAILED and SUCCEEDED macros instead of comparing to S_OK or zero.

[Mike McCormack]

James Hawkins wrote:
> Would you accept the patch if I put all results into an hr and then
> called FAILED(hr) instead?

Yeah, I think that's a better idea.

Mike