https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=404638
Philippe Waroquiers changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
CC|
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=404638
--- Comment #5 from Julian Seward ---
(In reply to Łukasz Marek from comment #4)
> Just one remark. Your method doesn't mark array sorted=false. I can live
> with that anyway.
Hmm, actually that's a good point. We do want to set sorted = false in this
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=404638
--- Comment #4 from Łukasz Marek ---
Just one remark. Your method doesn't mark array sorted=false. I can live with
that anyway.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=404638
--- Comment #3 from Łukasz Marek ---
(In reply to Julian Seward from comment #1)
> Is this actually necessary? I've always done this:
>
> T* p = (T*)VG_(indexXA)(arr, index);
> *p = new_value;
You are right, this new function is not necessary.
-
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=404638
--- Comment #2 from Julian Seward ---
or even
*(T*)VG_(indexXA)(arr, index) = new_value;
which removes the possibility of the array being modified between the
call to VG_(indexXA) and the assignment.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=404638
--- Comment #1 from Julian Seward ---
Is this actually necessary? I've always done this:
T* p = (T*)VG_(indexXA)(arr, index);
*p = new_value;
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.
