pilcher at concentric.net
Thu Feb 15 09:39:53 CST 2001
Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> IMHO the likelihood that your macros are going to introduce new bugs
> is larger than the likelihood that you are ever going to catch a
> legitimate failure from HeapFree(). Not to mention that there are
> already WARNs in the heap code that will catch the problem first, so
> your messages are redundant.
I can't argue with that, since it has been pointed out that the macros
can cause problems with if, then, else constructs. (Is there an
"emoticon" for embarrassment?) It is possible, however, to fix this.
And please don't overemphasize my HeapFree() example; that was
completely hypothetical. I have no knowledge of when HeapFree (or
RegCloseKey) might fail with valid inputs, nor do I want to know.
> Checking for errors is good if you actually handle failures; but if
> you don't do anything it just obscures the code for no good reason.
In a development/test environment, I think that issuing a warning
message is constructive. HeapFree, RegCloseKey, etc. may issue warnings
if they fail for legitimate reasons; then again they may not. I haven't
looked at the source code for these functions, and I don't think that I
should have to. (Going back to the hypothetical, I could also argue
we may want to test Wine DLLs within Windows someday.)
The obscure code issue takes us back to the macros, so the circle is
complete . . .
Ian Pilcher pilcher at concentric.net
More information about the wine-devel