23 Mar
2009
23 Mar
'09
4:38 p.m.
i know it's not what it does, it's an alternative someone refered in irc. i was wondering what you think would be the correct approach, since both fix the problem, the alternative just goes against the msdn documentation, which has been refered as not reliable :D
2009/3/23 James Hawkins truiken@gmail.com
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 4:04 PM, Ricardo Filipe ricardojdfilipe@gmail.com wrote:
my next task was to fix this eheh. i think it would make more sense to just change
if(!params->PathBuffer && !params->PathBufferSize)
to
if(!params->PathBuffer)
That's not what the patch does, but I did mistakenly leave an extra copy of requiredSize > params->PathBufferSize in the top if statement. Feel free to send a correct patch.
-- James Hawkins