Re: Alistair Leslie-Hughes : msvcrt: Implement wcscpy_s.

[James McKenzie]

Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> Module: wine
> Branch: master
> Commit: 00609d5e7824a117084f3f4b75e1aec03b60102a
> URL:    http://source.winehq.org/git/wine.git/?a=commit;h=00609d5e7824a117084f3f4b75...
>
> Author: Alistair Leslie-Hughes 
> Date:   Wed Feb 27 19:58:04 2008 +1100
>
> msvcrt: Implement wcscpy_s.
> -
> - if(size > numElement)

Is this correct?  I think it should be different, maybe if 
(size<numElement)?
> - {
> -
>    wcDest[0] = 0;
> -
>    return MSVCRT_EINVAL;
> - }
> -
> - if(size > numElement)

This and the one above are the same.
> -
>    size = numElement;
> -
> - memcpy( wcDest, wcSrc, size*sizeof(WCHAR) );
> -
> - return 0;
>
> +}

Alistair Leslie-Hughes : msvcrt: Implement wcscpy_s.

[James Hawkins]

On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 9:03 PM, James McKenzie
 wrote:
> Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> > Module: wine
> > Branch: master
> > Commit: 00609d5e7824a117084f3f4b75e1aec03b60102a
> > URL:    http://source.winehq.org/git/wine.git/?a=commit;h=00609d5e7824a117084f3f4b75...
> >
> > Author: Alistair Leslie-Hughes 
> > Date:   Wed Feb 27 19:58:04 2008 +1100
> >
> > msvcrt: Implement wcscpy_s.
> > -
> > - if(size > numElement)
>
> Is this correct?  I think it should be different, maybe if
>
> (size<numElement)?
> > - {
> > -
> >    wcDest[0] = 0;
> > -
> >    return MSVCRT_EINVAL;
> > - }
> > -
> > - if(size > numElement)
>
> This and the one above are the same.

If you'll read the tests, you'll see that the first test is correct
(although it should really be >= and he should add a test for this).
The second check should be removed completely.

Alistair Leslie-Hughes : msvcrt: Implement wcscpy_s.

[Alexandre Julliard]

"James Hawkins"  writes:
> If you'll read the tests, you'll see that the first test is correct
> (although it should really be >= and he should add a test for this).

No, it shouldn't be >=, there's no reason to fail if the buffer is the
same size as the data.

Alistair Leslie-Hughes : msvcrt: Implement wcscpy_s.

[James McKenzie]

Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> "James Hawkins"  writes:
> > If you'll read the tests, you'll see that the first test is correct
> > (although it should really be >= and he should add a test for this).
>
> No, it shouldn't be >=, there's no reason to fail if the buffer is the
> same size as the data.

The failure should be when the size of the data is more than the 
buffer.  I think that was the case for the first check.  The question 
was for the second chunk of code.  I think that it should have been less 
than.  If the size of the data and the size of the buffer are the same, 
no change to the size of the buffer is needed.

James McKenzie