19 Nov
2008
19 Nov
'08
8:47 a.m.
Very explanative :-)
I didn't ask whether they are correct, if you committed them, it's
enough to think it was intentional and correct. I asked *why* such
strange guards (read: hacks) in our code are needed? And is not it
better to fix bad callers instead, maybe it's on your todo list, I
don't know.
If it's by design, then allright, let's mark it as IN OPTIONAL
parameter and that's it.
WBR,
Aleksey.
On Nov 19, 2008, at 3:37 AM, James Tabor wrote:
These are correct changes.
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 10:34 AM, Aleksey Bragin
<aleksey(a)reactos.org> wrote:
> May I ask why those if (!Info) checks are required? To me it makes no
> sense to call those APIs with the cruicial, mandatory working (and in
> one case the only) parameter being NULL, and I would put an ASSERT
> (Info) there to catch bad callers and fix them.
>
> WBR,
> Aleksey.
>
> On Nov 18, 2008, at 8:36 AM, jimtabor(a)svn.reactos.org wrote:
>
>> Author: jimtabor
>> Date: Mon Nov 17 23:36:19 2008
>> New Revision: 37436
>>
>> UINT
>> FASTCALL
>> DIB_BitmapMaxBitsSize( PBITMAPINFO Info, UINT ScanLines )
>> {
>> UINT MaxBits = 0;
>> +
>> + if (!Info) return 0;
>>
>>
>> +UINT
>> +FASTCALL
>> +DIB_BitmapBitsSize( PBITMAPINFO Info )
>> +{
>> + UINT Ret;
>> +
>> + if (!Info) return 0;
>