On Mon, 19 Apr 2004, Francois Gouget wrote:
As for the previous patch it's important to check that the function does not actually try to write to these strings. And indeed there are a few cases where the function modifies the string, typically to change the drive letter in strings like 'A:\'.
What about a list of things that weren't "const static"-ied? Maybe we should have a policy of having such string as *always* "const static" (and maybe have puk's sparse tool warn for non conforming ones), and in places where they need to modify them, they just copy them on stack explicitly... -- Dimi.
On Mon, 19 Apr 2004, Dimitrie O. Paun wrote:
On Mon, 19 Apr 2004, Francois Gouget wrote:
As for the previous patch it's important to check that the function does not actually try to write to these strings. And indeed there are a few cases where the function modifies the string, typically to change the drive letter in strings like 'A:\'.
What about a list of things that weren't "const static"-ied? Maybe we should have a policy of having such string as *always* "const static" (and maybe have puk's sparse tool warn for non conforming ones), and in places where they need to modify them, they just copy them on stack explicitly...
AFAIK those that were left-out are not const/static-ifiable. Once the patches have been applied they can easily be found by running the following commands: egrep -r -n . "WCHAR" . | egrep "\\[\\] *= *{ *" | egrep -v "(const|static)" egrep -r -n . "static *WCHAR" . | egrep "\\[\\] *= *{ *" | grep -v const egrep -r -n . "const *WCHAR" . | egrep "\\[\\] *= *{ *" | grep -v static All in all you should get 25 lines. -- Francois Gouget fgouget(a)free.fr http://fgouget.free.fr/ 145 = 1! + 4! + 5!
participants (2)
-
Dimitrie O. Paun -
Francois Gouget