i know it's not what it does, it's an alternative someone refered in irc. i was wondering what you think would be the correct approach, since both fix the problem, the alternative just goes against the msdn documentation, which has been refered as not reliable :D
2009/3/23 James Hawkins <[email protected]> > On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 4:04 PM, Ricardo Filipe > <[email protected]> wrote: > > my next task was to fix this eheh. > > i think it would make more sense to just change > > > > if(!params->PathBuffer && !params->PathBufferSize) > > > > to > > > > if(!params->PathBuffer) > > > > That's not what the patch does, but I did mistakenly leave an extra > copy of requiredSize > params->PathBufferSize in the top if statement. > Feel free to send a correct patch. > > -- > James Hawkins >
