Vincent Pelletier subdino2004@yahoo.fr writes:
Checks for out-of-range value in "style" (paint_button function): must be style<MAX_BTN_TYPE or memory violation (reading unpredictable btyes) occurs, and as it's then used as a function address that could lead to random code execution.
If you really want an assertion you should use assert(), at least then it can be compiled out. And if it's a condition that can legitimately happen, then it has to be handled properly, just adding an ERR doesn't improve anything. In this case I guess it's conceivable that the app would change the style to an invalid one, so it needs to be handled.
Alexandre Julliard wrote:
If you really want an assertion you should use assert(), at least then it can be compiled out. And if it's a condition that can legitimately happen, then it has to be handled properly, just adding an ERR doesn't improve anything. In this case I guess it's conceivable that the app would change the style to an invalid one, so it needs to be handled.
I wanted to make it somewhat friendlier than a simple message & exit. Or I may missunderstand what assert does... At least, it could be used as a security against that "random code execution", and at most it could help devs tracking bugs. Btw, I suggest adding the source path (relative to wine's root of course) & function name in every error message, at least when run in trace mode. (I can take care of it if necessary.)
On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 18:55:19 +0100, Vincent Pelletier wrote:
Btw, I suggest adding the source path (relative to wine's root of course) & function name in every error message, at least when run in trace mode. (I can take care of it if necessary.)
I don't think there's any need for that - a trace message typically includes the function name. You can use tools/findfunc or the tags feature of your editor to find the relevant part of the code.
I know the Wine sources seem rather large and confusing at first, but you do get used to it fast - promise! The last thing we want is for logs to become even more unwieldy though, they are already large enough.
thanks -mike
Mike Hearn wrote:
The last thing we want is for logs to become even more unwieldy though, they are already large enough.
Hum, right. Nevermind :$ :).