Re: Tab control TCM_SETITEMEXTRA (bugzilla #1046)

[Alexandre Julliard]

Jon Griffiths <jon_p_griffiths(a)yahoo.com> writes:
> @@ -2557,8 +2562,10 @@
>      infoPtr->items[iItem].iImage = pti->iImage;
>
> if (pti->mask & TCIF_PARAM)
> -    infoPtr->items[iItem].lParam = pti->lParam;
> -
> +    memcpy(&infoPtr->items[iItem].lParam, &pti->lParam, infoPtr->cbInfo);
> +  else
> +    memset(&infoPtr->items[iItem].lParam, 0, infoPtr->cbInfo);

That doesn't look right at all, lParam is not at the end of the
structure. And the variable-size info should really be a byte array or
something similar, not an LPARAM.

-- 
Alexandre Julliard
julliard(a)winehq.org

Tab control TCM_SETITEMEXTRA (bugzilla #1046)

[Jon Griffiths]

Hi,
> That doesn't look right at all, lParam is not at the end of the
> structure.

Mybad, fixed in updated patch sent to wine-patches.
> And the variable-size info should really be a byte array
> or something similar, not an LPARAM.

It makes no difference; hardly anyone changes the the extra space and
by default it's declared as an LPARAM in the TCITEM struct. If I
declare it as BYTE[1] we still need to subtract its size and add in
cBytes so the TAB_ITEM_SIZE() macros is still needed. And the default
initialisation will still use sizeof(LPARAM) anyway.

Cheers,
Jon


=====
"Don't wait for the seas to part, or messiahs to come;
 Don't you sit around and waste this chance..." - Live

jon_p_griffiths(a)yahoo.com


	
		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends.  Fun.  Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/

Tab control TCM_SETITEMEXTRA (bugzilla #1046)

[Alexandre Julliard]

Jon Griffiths <jon_p_griffiths(a)yahoo.com> writes:
> It makes no difference; hardly anyone changes the the extra space and
> by default it's declared as an LPARAM in the TCITEM struct. If I
> declare it as BYTE[1] we still need to subtract its size and add in
> cBytes so the TAB_ITEM_SIZE() macros is still needed. And the default
> initialisation will still use sizeof(LPARAM) anyway.

It makes a big difference in code readability. It's pretty clear that
a BYTE[1] array is a variable size thing; nobody expects an LPARAM to
be variable size. Yes, Microsoft got it wrong in TCITEM, but that's
not a reason to make the same mistake in our internal structures.

-- 
Alexandre Julliard
julliard(a)winehq.org

Tab control TCM_SETITEMEXTRA (bugzilla #1046)

[Jon Griffiths]

> It makes a big difference in code readability.

I disagree, but for two lines of code, who cares. I've sent a new
version to wine-patches.

Cheers,
Jon




=====
"Don't wait for the seas to part, or messiahs to come;
 Don't you sit around and waste this chance..." - Live

jon_p_griffiths(a)yahoo.com


	
		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends.  Fun.  Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/

Tab control TCM_SETITEMEXTRA (bugzilla #1046)

[Bill Medland]

On June 4, 2004 01:36 am, Jon Griffiths wrote:
> > It makes a big difference in code readability.
>
> I disagree, but for two lines of code, who cares. I've sent a new
> version to wine-patches.

I agree with Alexandre.  Putting char buffer[1] at the end of a structure is a 
standard technique for expandable structures.
> Cheers,
> Jon
>
> =====
> "Don't wait for the seas to part, or messiahs to come;
>  Don't you sit around and waste this chance..." - Live
>
> jon_p_griffiths(a)yahoo.com
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Friends.  Fun.  Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
> http://messenger.yahoo.com/

-- 
Bill Medland
mailto:billmedland(a)mercuryspeed.com
http://webhome.idirect.com/~kbmed