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