On 28 Mar 2005, Alexandre Julliard wrote: > > This memcpyies one element more than needed.. but seemed much nicer than > > memcpy( ret, p, (len - 1)*sizeof(WHCAR); > > > > I probably should have subtracted one from len, making it obvious > > that this is a strdupW, like: > > ret = HeapAlloc( GetProcessHeap(), 0, (len+1)*sizeof(WCHAR) ); > > memcpy( ret, p, len*sizeof(WCHAR) ); > > ret[len] = 0; > > If it's really a strdup it's cleaner to copy one more char and get rid > of the ret[len] = 0.
Yes, and I would have done that, but in this case p is not \0 terminated. I probably left it like that because I didnt understand why it copied one byte to much in the strncpy case. That is exactly the reason for sending the patches one dll at the time: For authers/maintainers have a quick look at the replaces code. As I said in the in the beginning; if there was a bug, then it still there (but more obvious). Peter
