Re: Four questions to dll/iphlpapi/* wrt lstrcpyA.

[Juan Lang]

Hi Peter, there's nothing magical in here, your understanding is correct. 
I'll answer each question individually though.
> 1) I am wondering, why sizeof(ptr->Adaptername) is used instead of
> MAX_ADAPTER_NAME_LENGTH+1?

That's just a style thing.  I prefer sizeof(thing being copied) to
MAGIC_CONSTANT in case the structure being used changes.  That's unlikely
in this case since the structure is defined in a public header.  Since
it's a style thing there's no code-behavior reason to keep it this way.
> 2) Is 2a supposed to be saying 15

Yes, that's just a stupid bug apparently.  Why I didn't use sizeof is
beyond me.
> 3) Why suddenly the change to use memcpy? and not some strcpy
> function as the code above it?

I wrote this on a different day :)

--Juan


		
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/

Four questions to dll/iphlpapi/* wrt lstrcpyA.

[Francois Gouget]

On Sun, 20 Mar 2005, Juan Lang wrote:
> Hi Peter, there's nothing magical in here, your understanding is correct.
> I'll answer each question individually though.
> > 1) I am wondering, why sizeof(ptr->Adaptername) is used instead of
> > MAX_ADAPTER_NAME_LENGTH+1?
>
> That's just a style thing.  I prefer sizeof(thing being copied) to
> MAGIC_CONSTANT in case the structure being used changes.  That's unlikely
> in this case since the structure is defined in a public header.

It's not that unlikely. Microsoft has extended some of their structures 
many times in the past. That's why some of them have have these cbSize 
fields.

-- 
Francois Gouget         fgouget(a)free.fr        http://fgouget.free.fr/
      We are Pentium of Borg. You will be approximated. Division is futile.