> On second thought, coverity would still complain even with the > TRACEs adapted, so I'll mark these defects as Ignored in Coverity
Does the attached patch address one of the Coverity complaints? --Juan
From 13115c8ab68550b38f992eba04c9a05e88696f73 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Juan Lang <[email protected]> Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 19:20:50 -0800 Subject: [PATCH] Don't trace an in/out parameter when it's an out parameter --- dlls/crypt32/encode.c | 8 ++++---- 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/dlls/crypt32/encode.c b/dlls/crypt32/encode.c index 05a3558..7590012 100644 --- a/dlls/crypt32/encode.c +++ b/dlls/crypt32/encode.c @@ -185,7 +185,7 @@ BOOL WINAPI CRYPT_AsnEncodeSequence(DWORD dwCertEncodingType, DWORD i, dataLen = 0; TRACE("%p, %d, %08x, %p, %p, %d\n", items, cItem, dwFlags, pEncodePara, - pbEncoded, *pcbEncoded); + pbEncoded, pbEncoded ? *pcbEncoded : 0); for (i = 0, ret = TRUE; ret && i < cItem; i++) { ret = items[i].encodeFunc(dwCertEncodingType, NULL, @@ -580,7 +580,7 @@ static BOOL CRYPT_AsnEncodeCRLEntry(const CRL_ENTRY *entry, DWORD cItem = 2; BOOL ret; - TRACE("%p, %p, %p\n", entry, pbEncoded, pcbEncoded); + TRACE("%p, %p, %d\n", entry, pbEncoded, pbEncoded ? *pcbEncoded : 0); if (entry->cExtension) { @@ -736,7 +736,7 @@ static BOOL CRYPT_AsnEncodeExtension(CERT_EXTENSION *ext, BYTE *pbEncoded, }; DWORD cItem = 1; - TRACE("%p, %p, %d\n", ext, pbEncoded, *pcbEncoded); + TRACE("%p, %p, %d\n", ext, pbEncoded, pbEncoded ? *pcbEncoded : 0); if (ext->fCritical) { @@ -3194,7 +3194,7 @@ BOOL WINAPI CRYPT_AsnEncodeOctets(DWORD dwCertEncodingType, DWORD bytesNeeded, lenBytes; TRACE("(%d, %p), %08x, %p, %p, %d\n", blob->cbData, blob->pbData, - dwFlags, pEncodePara, pbEncoded, *pcbEncoded); + dwFlags, pEncodePara, pbEncoded, pbEncoded ? *pcbEncoded : 0); CRYPT_EncodeLen(blob->cbData, NULL, &lenBytes); bytesNeeded = 1 + lenBytes + blob->cbData; -- 1.7.1
