[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DAEMON-392?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Gary Gregory updated DAEMON-392:
--------------------------------
Description: in the code added when fixing DAEMON-376 and DAEMON-311
undefined behaviour and a wrong comment was introduced. See
[https://stackoverflow.com/questions/4968854/is-i-i-truly-a-undefined-behavior]
for the undefined behaviour. (was: in the code added when fixing DAEMON-376
and DAEMON-311 undefined behaviour and a wrong comment was introduced. See
[https://stackoverflow.com/questions/4968854/is-i-i-truly-a-undefined-behavior]
for the undefined behaviour.
According to the description in DAEMON-376 (and to my experience) these two
comments (same file and same ticket) should be the other way round:
L"SOFTWARE\\JavaSoft\\JRE
", /* Oracle Java 8 and earlier */
L"SOFTWARE\\JavaSoft
Java Runtime Environment
", /* Oracle Java 9 (and hopefully later) */
)
> Undefined behaviour in registry.c dwRegKey = dwRegKey++
> -------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: DAEMON-392
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DAEMON-392
> Project: Commons Daemon
> Issue Type: Bug
> Reporter: Daniel Hofmann
> Priority: Major
>
> in the code added when fixing DAEMON-376 and DAEMON-311 undefined behaviour
> and a wrong comment was introduced. See
> [https://stackoverflow.com/questions/4968854/is-i-i-truly-a-undefined-behavior]
> for the undefined behaviour.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
