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@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@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;