Re: advpack:reg.c: Cast-qual warning fix

[Alexandre Julliard]

Andrew Talbot <Andrew.Talbot(a)talbotville.com> writes:
> --- a/dlls/advpack/reg.c	2006-06-14 12:55:31.000000000 +0100
> +++ b/dlls/advpack/reg.c	2006-08-28 17:00:18.000000000 +0100
> @@ -255,11 +255,14 @@
>      /* FIXME: read AdvOptions val for dwFlags */
>      ZeroMemory(&cabinfo, sizeof(CABINFOW));
>      cabinfo.pszInf = tmp_ini_path;
> -    cabinfo.pszSection = (LPWSTR)pszSection;
> +    cabinfo.pszSection = HeapAlloc(GetProcessHeap(), 0, (lstrlenW(pszSection) + 1) * sizeof(WCHAR));
> +    lstrcpyW(cabinfo.pszSection, pszSection);
>      cabinfo.dwFlags = 0;

I don't think we want to duplicate strings just because of the
warning. If the string really needs to be writable sure, but if it's
just because of MS broken prototypes it's not worth the extra cost.

-- 
Alexandre Julliard
julliard(a)winehq.org

advpack:reg.c: Cast-qual warning fix

[Andrew Talbot]

Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> I don't think we want to duplicate strings just because of the
> warning. If the string really needs to be writable sure, but if it's
> just because of MS broken prototypes it's not worth the extra cost.

So am I right to infer that, in such cases, you would rather that I leave
the disqualifying casts in place?

Thanks,

-- Andy.

advpack:reg.c: Cast-qual warning fix

[Alexandre Julliard]

Andrew Talbot <Andrew.Talbot(a)talbotville.com> writes:
> So am I right to infer that, in such cases, you would rather that I leave
> the disqualifying casts in place?

For the moment, yes. Let's look at this again once all the places that
can be fixed properly are done.

-- 
Alexandre Julliard
julliard(a)winehq.org