On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 3:50 PM, Alexandre Julliard <[email protected]> wrote: > James Hawkins <[email protected]> writes: > >>> This cannot be right. What happens to the original first_section then? >>> >> >> I don't really understand your question. By original first_section, >> do you mean the first_section that we loaded from an existing file or >> that is in the cache? If so, then the answer is that the cache is >> cleared when the file is re-read. That doesn't really seem like what >> you're asking though. next_section is just a poorly worded name for a >> list iterator which starts at the first section and loads all of the >> sections into the file. Without this fix, the first section is loaded >> as a blank section and the real first section starts second in the >> linked list. After all of the loading is done, the first_section is >> returned to the caller. > > Yes, the first section is empty, it's supposed to hold keys that appear > before the first section header (if any). With your patch it will simply > be dropped (and leaked). A better patch would be to only create the > first section as needed, when we encounter either a section header or a > stand-alone key. >
Ah ok, I didn't know about that functionality. I will add more tests and a better fix. -- James Hawkins
