Fix 64-bit conversion errors

I pushed this already, since it's rather trivial and not actually changing any behaviour.

[Wladimir Palant, 2013-08-17 09:10:07]

LGTM, with one nit.

http://codereview.adblockplus.org/11449051/diff/1/src/plugin/PluginClass.cpp
File src/plugin/PluginClass.cpp (right):

http://codereview.adblockplus.org/11449051/diff/1/src/plugin/PluginClass.cpp#...
src/plugin/PluginClass.cpp:1555: int nParts = static_cast<int>(wParam);
Do we need a cast here? From the look of it, using WPARAM type for nParts should
do (LocalAlloc takes SIZE_T which is pointer-sized - like WPARAM).

[Felix Dahlke, 2013-08-17 09:23:29]

http://codereview.adblockplus.org/11449051/diff/1/src/plugin/PluginClass.cpp
File src/plugin/PluginClass.cpp (right):

http://codereview.adblockplus.org/11449051/diff/1/src/plugin/PluginClass.cpp#...
src/plugin/PluginClass.cpp:1555: int nParts = static_cast<int>(wParam);
On 2013/08/17 09:10:07, Wladimir Palant wrote:
> Do we need a cast here? From the look of it, using WPARAM type for nParts
should
> do (LocalAlloc takes SIZE_T which is pointer-sized - like WPARAM).

It's not necessary, we can do numerical comparisons with numbers and pointers,
but I think the intent is clearer here when we cast this to int.

http://codereview.adblockplus.org/11449051/diff/1/src/plugin/PluginClass.cpp#...
src/plugin/PluginClass.cpp:1555: int nParts = static_cast<int>(wParam);
On 2013/08/17 09:10:07, Wladimir Palant wrote:
> Do we need a cast here? From the look of it, using WPARAM type for nParts
should
> do (LocalAlloc takes SIZE_T which is pointer-sized - like WPARAM).

Yes, the cast is not strictly speaking necessary, we could remove this
assignment and just use wParam to begin with. But I think it's clearer to cast
to the actual number type when we want to use it as a number.

[Wladimir Palant, 2013-08-17 09:43:04]

http://codereview.adblockplus.org/11449051/diff/1/src/plugin/PluginClass.cpp
File src/plugin/PluginClass.cpp (right):

http://codereview.adblockplus.org/11449051/diff/1/src/plugin/PluginClass.cpp#...
src/plugin/PluginClass.cpp:1555: int nParts = static_cast<int>(wParam);
On 2013/08/17 09:23:29, Felix H. Dahlke wrote:
> On 2013/08/17 09:10:07, Wladimir Palant wrote:
> > Do we need a cast here? From the look of it, using WPARAM type for nParts
> should
> > do (LocalAlloc takes SIZE_T which is pointer-sized - like WPARAM).
> 
> Yes, the cast is not strictly speaking necessary, we could remove this
> assignment and just use wParam to begin with. But I think it's clearer to cast
> to the actual number type when we want to use it as a number.

Well, WPARAM is still a number type even though it is no longer a single word
(originally it was, hence the name).

[Felix Dahlke, 2013-08-17 09:47:48]

On 2013/08/17 09:43:04, Wladimir Palant wrote:
> http://codereview.adblockplus.org/11449051/diff/1/src/plugin/PluginClass.cpp
> File src/plugin/PluginClass.cpp (right):
> 
>
http://codereview.adblockplus.org/11449051/diff/1/src/plugin/PluginClass.cpp#...
> src/plugin/PluginClass.cpp:1555: int nParts = static_cast<int>(wParam);
> On 2013/08/17 09:23:29, Felix H. Dahlke wrote:
> > On 2013/08/17 09:10:07, Wladimir Palant wrote:
> > > Do we need a cast here? From the look of it, using WPARAM type for nParts
> > should
> > > do (LocalAlloc takes SIZE_T which is pointer-sized - like WPARAM).
> > 
> > Yes, the cast is not strictly speaking necessary, we could remove this
> > assignment and just use wParam to begin with. But I think it's clearer to
cast
> > to the actual number type when we want to use it as a number.
> 
> Well, WPARAM is still a number type even though it is no longer a single word
> (originally it was, hence the name).

I thought it's supposed to be a pointer and we're abusing it here. If that's not
the case, we can just use wParam directly.

[Wladimir Palant, 2013-08-17 09:51:47]

On 2013/08/17 09:47:48, Felix H. Dahlke wrote:
> I thought it's supposed to be a pointer and we're abusing it here. If that's
not
> the case, we can just use wParam directly.

I actually like assigning to an intermediate variable here - it shows what
wParam stands for in this case. The compiler optimizes that assignment away
anyways.

[Felix Dahlke, 2013-08-17 10:00:59]

On 2013/08/17 09:51:47, Wladimir Palant wrote:
> On 2013/08/17 09:47:48, Felix H. Dahlke wrote:
> > I thought it's supposed to be a pointer and we're abusing it here. If that's
> not
> > the case, we can just use wParam directly.
> 
> I actually like assigning to an intermediate variable here - it shows what
> wParam stands for in this case. The compiler optimizes that assignment away
> anyways.

Okay, agreed. Read up on this a bit and WPARAM is really intended for passing
integers and handles, not as some kind of void* like I thought. Fixed in:
https://hg.adblockplus.org/adblockplusie/rev/27bb0bd178e5

[Oleksandr, 2013-08-17 22:22:29]

LGTM