"Jeff Latimer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I looked at that and it required another test. When I discussed this > last with Dmitry, I said it would be best to pass machine and he agreed > that this would be best. The checking for alloc failures will generate > similar amounts of code to what I am removing. I am happy to do it but > have a concern that the code will look to be inefficient and not > accepted. Logically, the patch is the correct way to proceed as machine > should be passed even if not implemented yet. That said, if the patch > is acceptable, there is another case that will need to be brought into line.
Hans means something like the following done in PdhOpenQueryA: WCHAR *sourceW = NULL; if (source && !(sourceW = pdh_strdup_aw( source ))) return PDH_MEMORY_ALLOCATION_FAILURE; and that's certainly not a large amount of code. Actually all pdh_strdup_aw callers already check for a possible NULL, but that may be sent as a separate patch IMO. -- Dmitry.
