+ status = GdipCreateHatchBrush(data->BrushData.hatch.HatchStyle, *(ARGB *)&data->BrushData.hatch.ForeColor, + *(ARGB *)&data->BrushData.hatch.BackColor, (GpHatch **)brush);
I guess this is OK for this patch, but maybe we should modify the definition of EmfPlusARGB to avoid needing things like this?
On 01.11.2017 19:46, Vincent Povirk wrote:
status =GdipCreateHatchBrush(data->BrushData.hatch.HatchStyle, *(ARGB *)&data->BrushData.hatch.ForeColor,
*(ARGB *)&data->BrushData.hatch.BackColor, (GpHatch **)brush);I guess this is OK for this patch, but maybe we should modify the definition of EmfPlusARGB to avoid needing things like this?
Sure. You think it's better to have a single ARGB field, or a union to make components accessible too?
Sure. You think it's better to have a single ARGB field, or a union to make components accessible too?
I don't see a need to make components accessible. Now that I'm thinking about it, I don't think we need an EmfPlusARGB typedef at all.
On 01.11.2017 21:46, Vincent Povirk wrote:
Sure. You think it's better to have a single ARGB field, or a union to make components accessible too?
I don't see a need to make components accessible. Now that I'm thinking about it, I don't think we need an EmfPlusARGB typedef at all.
Possible reason is to have other structures definitions closer to what specification says. I'd prefer typedef to ARGB as opposed to no separate type, but I don't care all that much and can remove it.
I think typedef to either ARGB or DWORD is fine.
-
Nikolay Sivov -
Vincent Povirk