On January 9, 2003 07:08 pm, Bill Medland wrote:
- if (!tpinfo->chanbuf) {
ERR("tpinfo has no Rpc Channel Buffer\n");return 0;- }
Is this expected behaviour? If so, there's no need for the ERR msg. If not, there's no need for the test, we need to fix the root cause...
On January 9, 2003 03:12 pm, Dimitrie O. Paun wrote:
On January 9, 2003 07:08 pm, Bill Medland wrote:
- if (!tpinfo->chanbuf) {
ERR("tpinfo has no Rpc Channel Buffer\n");return 0;- }
Is this expected behaviour? If so, there's no need for the ERR msg. If not, there's no need for the test, we need to fix the root cause...
You are, of course, quite correct. I don't know what the expected behaviour is; all I know is that dereferncing the null pointer isn't. If someone actually understands all that proxy stuff then maybe they can do something about it. If not then I guess it is destined to languish unfixed.
On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 05:45:00PM -0800, Bill Medland wrote:
On January 9, 2003 03:12 pm, Dimitrie O. Paun wrote:
On January 9, 2003 07:08 pm, Bill Medland wrote:
- if (!tpinfo->chanbuf) {
ERR("tpinfo has no Rpc Channel Buffer\n");return 0;- }
Is this expected behaviour? If so, there's no need for the ERR msg. If not, there's no need for the test, we need to fix the root cause...
You are, of course, quite correct. I don't know what the expected behaviour is; all I know is that dereferncing the null pointer isn't. If someone actually understands all that proxy stuff then maybe they can do something about it. If not then I guess it is destined to languish unfixed.
I vaguely remember this happening for inter-thread COM, I did not come around to debug it yet.
"return E_FAIL;" might be more appropriate too.
Ciao, Marcus
On January 9, 2003 10:44 pm, Marcus Meissner wrote:
On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 05:45:00PM -0800, Bill Medland wrote:
On January 9, 2003 03:12 pm, Dimitrie O. Paun wrote:
On January 9, 2003 07:08 pm, Bill Medland wrote:
- if (!tpinfo->chanbuf) {
ERR("tpinfo has no Rpc Channel Buffer\n");return 0;- }
Is this expected behaviour? If so, there's no need for the ERR msg. If not, there's no need for the test, we need to fix the root cause...
You are, of course, quite correct. I don't know what the expected behaviour is; all I know is that dereferncing the null pointer isn't. If someone actually understands all that proxy stuff then maybe they can do something about it. If not then I guess it is destined to languish unfixed.
I vaguely remember this happening for inter-thread COM, I did not come around to debug it yet.
"return E_FAIL;" might be more appropriate too.
Ciao, Marcus
Does anyone have any test harness/Petzold-style code for investigating IProxyBuffer so that we can tighten up the loose edges?
On January 13, 2003 06:36 pm, you wrote:
On January 9, 2003 10:44 pm, Marcus Meissner wrote:
On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 05:45:00PM -0800, Bill Medland wrote:
On January 9, 2003 03:12 pm, Dimitrie O. Paun wrote:
On January 9, 2003 07:08 pm, Bill Medland wrote:
- if (!tpinfo->chanbuf) {
ERR("tpinfo has no Rpc Channel Buffer\n");return 0;- }
Is this expected behaviour? If so, there's no need for the ERR msg. If not, there's no need for the test, we need to fix the root cause...
You are, of course, quite correct. I don't know what the expected behaviour is; all I know is that dereferncing the null pointer isn't. If someone actually understands all that proxy stuff then maybe they can do something about it. If not then I guess it is destined to languish unfixed.
I vaguely remember this happening for inter-thread COM, I did not come around to debug it yet.
"return E_FAIL;" might be more appropriate too.
Ciao, Marcus
Does anyone have any test harness/Petzold-style code for investigating IProxyBuffer so that we can tighten up the loose edges?
Woops. I mean IRpcProxyBuffer
-
Bill Medland -
Dimitrie O. Paun -
Marcus Meissner