Quicken/CreateCompatibleBitmap issue revisited

[Carl Sopchak]

Thanks for the input, Rein.  Allowing either a width or height of zero to fall 
through should result in a 1x1 monochrome bitmap (I haven't tested it, but 
did read through the code and it looks like that would be returned).

However, the other points that I made call into question the need for the 
check at all.  XP has no size limit to a bitmap, at least that's mentioned on 
MSDN.

Is the intention of this condition one of a "sanity check"?  If so, should it 
be modified or even removed?  Has this code been around long enough so that 
the check isn't needed?  (I.e., was it included for stability/wine bug 
checking purposes?)  Or, maybe changing it to check that BOTH are >= 0x10000, 
or maybe their product is >= 0x100000000 [can we get that precision on all 
wine platforms?] would be reasonable?  Or, do we go with the 16Mb Win95 
limit?

Thoughts?

Carl

On Friday, April 29, 2005 02:13 pm, Rein Klazes wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 10:46:31 -0400, you wrote:
> > This seems wrong to me on
> > three counts: (1) MSDN states that if either width or height is zero, a
> > 1x1 monochrome bitmap is returned
>
> Indeed, what happens if you try this obvious patch:
>
> ========================================>8=================================
>====== --- wine/dlls/gdi/bitmap.c 2005-04-14 10:50:50.000000000 +0200
> +++ mywine/dlls/gdi/bitmap.c 2005-04-29 20:04:37.000000000 +0200
> @@ -134,7 +134,7 @@ HBITMAP WINAPI CreateCompatibleBitmap( H
>
>      TRACE("(%p,%d,%d) = \n", hdc, width, height);
>
> -    if ((width >= 0x10000) || (height >= 0x10000))
> +    if ((height && width >= 0x10000) || (width && height >= 0x10000))
>      {
>          FIXME("got bad width %d or height %d, please look for reason\n",
>                width, height);
> ========================================>8=================================
>======
>
> Rein.