"Lionel Ulmer" lionel.ulmer@free.fr wrote:
+BOOL WINAPI GetProcessPriorityBoost(HANDLE hprocess,PBOOL pDisablePriorityBoost) +{ + FIXME("(%p,%p): semi-stub\n", hprocess, pDisablePriorityBoost); + + /* Report that no boost is present.. */ + *pDisablePriorityBoost = FALSE;
I'm curious whether you need to test for pDisablePriorityBoost != NULL before setting its value...
+BOOL WINAPI GetProcessPriorityBoost(HANDLE hprocess,PBOOL pDisablePriorityBoost) +{
- FIXME("(%p,%p): semi-stub\n", hprocess, pDisablePriorityBoost);
- /* Report that no boost is present.. */
- *pDisablePriorityBoost = FALSE;
I'm curious whether you need to test for pDisablePriorityBoost != NULL before setting its value...
Well, this would need to be tested on real windows.... But well, I would find it stupid to have a 'no-op' case like that supported (or even used by applications).
Anyway, this is only used in 'error cases' by DungeonSiege so it's not that a big deal if it's not committed to the tree.
Lionel
"Lionel Ulmer" lionel.ulmer@free.fr wrote:
I'm curious whether you need to test for pDisablePriorityBoost != NULL before setting its value...
Well, this would need to be tested on real windows.... But well, I would find it stupid to have a 'no-op' case like that supported (or even used by applications).
If the only problem is to test it under Windows you can always ask people to do so. Okay, I tested it and passing NULL does crash. So, yes, your patch is correct.
Anyway, this is only used in 'error cases' by DungeonSiege so it's not that a big deal if it's not committed to the tree.
Do you mean that a single objection can make you so unhappy that you give up? :-)
On Mon, May 26, 2003 at 05:20:12PM +0900, Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
Do you mean that a single objection can make you so unhappy that you give up? :-)
Nah, between the fear of rejection and the pain of rebooting in Windows, I choose the rejection of the patch ;-)
Lionel
-
Dmitry Timoshkov -
Lionel Ulmer