Martin Dietze wrote: > The way XGetWindowProperty() is called according to your patch > the code *looks* better, in particular since when looking at it > you see that the arguments in question are supposed to be longs.
Ok. > I can't see how passing 0L instead of 0 should make any > difference. Ok, when I read that patch I thought that maybe some subtle thing was going on when compiled in 32-bit or 64-bit. At least it seemed to matter for the guy who made the patch. >> /* >> * TODO >> * ---- >> * >> * This file needs to be checked for all calls to XGetWindowProperty() and >> * proper checks need to be made on the returned values. Only checking for >> * return to be Success is not enough. -Dan >> */ >> >> So they knew about the fishiness at that time. > > I saw this comment, too. Not quite sure what he meant, I had the > impression that he was concerned about checking the results. Or > maybe there's something we haven't seen yet? Yeah, it is about the return value. Reading the man page can tell you why, there is a bunch of things to consider. -- To unsubscribe, send mail to [email protected].
