Yes, you're right. Thank you for spotting.
Eryk
2010/11/24 Michael Stefaniuc mstefani@redhat.de:
Eryk,
I guess this is what you had in mind as checking the pointer for greater 0 is redundant as it is already not-NULL.
dlls/msvcrt/time.c | 4 ++-- 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/dlls/msvcrt/time.c b/dlls/msvcrt/time.c index 7ccdc7d..4150156 100644 --- a/dlls/msvcrt/time.c +++ b/dlls/msvcrt/time.c @@ -913,7 +913,7 @@ int CDECL MSVCRT__ctime64_s(char *res, MSVCRT_size_t len, const MSVCRT___time64_ return MSVCRT_EINVAL; } res[0] = '\0';
- if( !MSVCRT_CHECK_PMT( time != NULL ) || !MSVCRT_CHECK_PMT( time > 0 ) )
- if( !MSVCRT_CHECK_PMT( time != NULL ) || !MSVCRT_CHECK_PMT( *time > 0 ) )
{ *MSVCRT__errno() = MSVCRT_EINVAL; return MSVCRT_EINVAL; @@ -946,7 +946,7 @@ int CDECL MSVCRT__ctime32_s(char *res, MSVCRT_size_t len, const MSVCRT___time32_ return MSVCRT_EINVAL; } res[0] = '\0';
- if( !MSVCRT_CHECK_PMT( time != NULL ) || !MSVCRT_CHECK_PMT( time > 0 ) )
- if( !MSVCRT_CHECK_PMT( time != NULL ) || !MSVCRT_CHECK_PMT( *time > 0 ) )
{ *MSVCRT__errno() = MSVCRT_EINVAL; return MSVCRT_EINVAL; -- 1.7.3.2