Re: [PATCH 5/5] d3dx9: Correctly handle out of memory conditions while reallocating children array.

[Henri Verbeet]

On 26 August 2014 16:13, Matteo Bruni  wrote:
> @@ -338,15 +338,20 @@ static HRESULT d3dx9_file_data_create(IDirectXFileObject *dxfile_object, ID3DXFi
>  while (SUCCEEDED(ret = IDirectXFileData_GetNextObject(object->dxfile_data, &data_object)))

...
> -
>        new_children = HeapReAlloc(GetProcessHeap(), 0, object->children,
> -
>                sizeof(*object->children) * (object->nb_children + 1));

While I suspect this is hardly the only thing wrong with xfile.c, it
seems suboptimal to grow the array by 1 each time you go through the
loop.

[PATCH 5/5] d3dx9: Correctly handle out of memory conditions while reallocating children array.

[Matteo Bruni]

2014-08-26 16:30 GMT+02:00 Henri Verbeet :
> On 26 August 2014 16:13, Matteo Bruni  wrote:
> > @@ -338,15 +338,20 @@ static HRESULT d3dx9_file_data_create(IDirectXFileObject *dxfile_object, ID3DXFi
> >  while (SUCCEEDED(ret = IDirectXFileData_GetNextObject(object->dxfile_data, &data_object)))
>
> ...
> > -
> >        new_children = HeapReAlloc(GetProcessHeap(), 0, object->children,
> > -
> >                sizeof(*object->children) * (object->nb_children + 1));
>
> While I suspect this is hardly the only thing wrong with xfile.c, it
> seems suboptimal to grow the array by 1 each time you go through the
> loop.

Yeah, it should start at some size greater than 1 (no idea about
typical children count here though) and then grow exponentially. I
guess that can be a separate patch, but I can also add it to this one
and resend if preferred.

[PATCH 5/5] d3dx9: Correctly handle out of memory conditions while reallocating children array.

[Matteo Bruni]

2014-08-26 16:58 GMT+02:00 Matteo Bruni :
> 2014-08-26 16:30 GMT+02:00 Henri Verbeet :
> > On 26 August 2014 16:13, Matteo Bruni  wrote:
> > > @@ -338,15 +338,20 @@ static HRESULT d3dx9_file_data_create(IDirectXFileObject *dxfile_object, ID3DXFi
> > >  while (SUCCEEDED(ret = IDirectXFileData_GetNextObject(object->dxfile_data, &data_object)))
> >
> > ...
> > > -
> > >        new_children = HeapReAlloc(GetProcessHeap(), 0, object->children,
> > > -
> > >                sizeof(*object->children) * (object->nb_children + 1));
> >
> > While I suspect this is hardly the only thing wrong with xfile.c, it
> > seems suboptimal to grow the array by 1 each time you go through the
> > loop.
>
> Yeah, it should start at some size greater than 1 (no idea about
> typical children count here though) and then grow exponentially. I
> guess that can be a separate patch, but I can also add it to this one
> and resend if preferred.

Actually, merging the two results in a bit less churn.
So, this patch replaces the original one. I manually generated this
patch via "git diff" (and kept the individual commits locally just in
case), if this doesn't work right you can either commit the original
one as-is or just leave it out.