Re: olefont: ref count cleanup

[Robert Shearman]

James Hawkins wrote:
> Changelog
>    * Use InterlockedDecrement and InterlockedIncrement instead of ++/--.

Again, all of these patches do not fix the whole point about using the 
Interlocked* functions, which is that the variable must always be used 
*atomically*. That means if you grep the file for uses of "This->ref" 
(or the equivalent) then they should all only be as parameters to 
Interlocked* functions.

Rob

olefont: ref count cleanup

[James Hawkins]

> (or the equivalent) then they should all only be as parameters to
> Interlocked* functions

Does that apply to the TRACE's as well?


On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 21:22:22 +0100, Robert Shearman <rob(a)codeweavers.com> wrote:
> James Hawkins wrote:
> > Changelog
> >    * Use InterlockedDecrement and InterlockedIncrement instead of ++/--.
>
> Again, all of these patches do not fix the whole point about using the
> Interlocked* functions, which is that the variable must always be used
> *atomically*. That means if you grep the file for uses of "This->ref"
> (or the equivalent) then they should all only be as parameters to
> Interlocked* functions.
>
> Rob

-- 
James Hawkins

olefont: ref count cleanup

[Robert Shearman]

James Hawkins wrote:
> > (or the equivalent) then they should all only be as parameters to
> > Interlocked* functions
>
> Does that apply to the TRACE's as well?

No. If you can easily change TRACE's to use the return value from an 
Interlocked* function then that may be preferable, but it won't change 
how the program functions so it is fine if you don't.

Rob