[Libreoffice-commits] core.git: editeng/source

[Tor Lillqvist]

 editeng/source/editeng/impedit3.cxx |    2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

New commits:
commit 494f9304086de829b0ab372b35c337bc50236f33
Author: Tor Lillqvist <tml at iki.fi>
Date:   Mon Mar 11 11:47:25 2013 +0200

    Fix fallout from 3137258e346a9c16b2e61747fd926a1e7d358d02
    
    WaE: expression which evaluates to zero treated as a null pointer
    constant of type 'OutputDevice *'.
    
    In this case, I think the code would have worked despite the scary
    warning. (By luck, as the sal_False got passed as a NULL OutputDevice
    pointer, and the following sal_Boolean parameter, which the sal_False
    presumably was intended to mean, has the default value of sal_False.)
    But better to make it more explicit which overload of Paint() is
    intended.
    
    But seriously, what good is supposed to come from the overloading of
    the function name Paint() here? Would it really be so horribly
    old-fashioned and C-like to use two different function names for the
    slightly different use cases?
    
    Change-Id: Ib397c8c1785320d3a9c0579a24f2c28ee4d22796

diff --git a/editeng/source/editeng/impedit3.cxx b/editeng/source/editeng/impedit3.cxx
index dbc6910..fd88e88 100644
--- a/editeng/source/editeng/impedit3.cxx
+++ b/editeng/source/editeng/impedit3.cxx
@@ -3722,7 +3722,7 @@ void ImpEditEngine::Paint( ImpEditView* pView, const Rectangle& rRec, OutputDevi
         DBG_ASSERT( bVDevValid, "VDef could not be enlarged!" );
         if ( !bVDevValid )
         {
-            Paint( pView, rRec, sal_False /* ohne VDev */ );
+            Paint( pView, rRec, 0, sal_False /* ohne VDev */ );
             return;
         }