Re: make LoadStringW pass tests (fixed merge conflict)

[James Hawkins]

On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 11:58 AM, Christopher
<raccoonone(a)procyongames.com> wrote:
> resubmitting my patch to resolve a merge conflict with the latest GIT
>
> Christopher Berner
>
> From 47a770102acf010834899489416e92fd4f79ffd1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>  From: Christopher Berner <raccoonone(a)procyongames.com>
>  Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 09:28:26 -0800
>  Subject: [PATCH] make LoadStringW pass conformance tests
>
> ---
>   dlls/crypt32/oid.c           |    3 ++-
>   dlls/hhctrl.ocx/help.c       |    4 ++--
>   dlls/mpr/wnet.c              |    3 ++-
>   dlls/user32/resource.c       |   14 +++++++++++++-
>   dlls/user32/tests/resource.c |   29 +++++++++++------------------
>   5 files changed, 30 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/dlls/crypt32/oid.c b/dlls/crypt32/oid.c
>  index 5d17997..edd9732 100644
>  --- a/dlls/crypt32/oid.c
>  +++ b/dlls/crypt32/oid.c
>  @@ -1402,8 +1402,9 @@ static void init_oid_info(HINSTANCE hinst)
>          }
>          else
>          {
>  +            LPWSTR junkpointer; /* third argument cannot be NULL, to receive length of resource from LoadStringW */
>              int len = LoadStringW(hinst, (UINT_PTR)oidInfoConstructors[i].pwszName,
>  -             NULL, 0);
>  +             (LPWSTR)&junkpointer, 0);

Why don't you just name the new parameter the same name as the
function parameter ('buffer' or some variation)?  junkpointer is a
terrible variable name.

-- 
James Hawkins

make LoadStringW pass tests (fixed merge conflict)

[Christopher]

James Hawkins wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 11:58 AM, Christopher
> <raccoonone(a)procyongames.com> wrote:
> > resubmitting my patch to resolve a merge conflict with the latest GIT
> >
> > Christopher Berner
> >
> > From 47a770102acf010834899489416e92fd4f79ffd1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> >  From: Christopher Berner <raccoonone(a)procyongames.com>
> >  Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 09:28:26 -0800
> >  Subject: [PATCH] make LoadStringW pass conformance tests
> >
> > ---
> >   dlls/crypt32/oid.c           |    3 ++-
> >   dlls/hhctrl.ocx/help.c       |    4 ++--
> >   dlls/mpr/wnet.c              |    3 ++-
> >   dlls/user32/resource.c       |   14 +++++++++++++-
> >   dlls/user32/tests/resource.c |   29 +++++++++++------------------
> >   5 files changed, 30 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/dlls/crypt32/oid.c b/dlls/crypt32/oid.c
> >  index 5d17997..edd9732 100644
> >  --- a/dlls/crypt32/oid.c
> >  +++ b/dlls/crypt32/oid.c
> >  @@ -1402,8 +1402,9 @@ static void init_oid_info(HINSTANCE hinst)
> >          }
> >          else
> >          {
> >  +            LPWSTR junkpointer; /* third argument cannot be NULL, to receive length of resource from LoadStringW */
> >              int len = LoadStringW(hinst, (UINT_PTR)oidInfoConstructors[i].pwszName,
> >  -             NULL, 0);
> >  +             (LPWSTR)&junkpointer, 0);
>
> Why don't you just name the new parameter the same name as the
> function parameter ('buffer' or some variation)?  junkpointer is a
> terrible variable name.

sure, I will change it.

make LoadStringW pass tests (fixed merge conflict)

[Alexandre Julliard]

Christopher <raccoonone(a)procyongames.com> writes:
> James Hawkins wrote:
> > Why don't you just name the new parameter the same name as the
> > function parameter ('buffer' or some variation)?  junkpointer is a
> > terrible variable name.
>
> sure, I will change it.

Actually what you should do is take advantage of the fact that the
pointer is returned to simplify the code and avoid a second LoadStringW
call.

-- 
Alexandre Julliard
julliard(a)winehq.org

make LoadStringW pass tests (fixed merge conflict)

[Christopher]

Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> Christopher <raccoonone(a)procyongames.com> writes:
> > James Hawkins wrote:
> > > Why don't you just name the new parameter the same name as the
> > > function parameter ('buffer' or some variation)?  junkpointer is a
> > > terrible variable name.
> >
> > sure, I will change it.
>
> Actually what you should do is take advantage of the fact that the
> pointer is returned to simplify the code and avoid a second LoadStringW
> call.

Is there more work I need to do on this patch? I noticed that the new 
copy that I sent in, with the corrections that everyone suggested, still 
hasn't been accepted.

Christopher Berner