On Wed, 22 May 2013 12:36:27 -0700
Thiago Macieira wrote:
> On quarta-feira, 22 de maio de 2013 10.20.05, ppaala...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Apparently some compilers complain about set but not used variables
> > 'available' and 'bufs', but I don't get the warning. Still, separate the
> > debugging c
On quarta-feira, 22 de maio de 2013 10.20.05, ppaala...@gmail.com wrote:
> Apparently some compilers complain about set but not used variables
> 'available' and 'bufs', but I don't get the warning. Still, separate the
> debugging code from shm_surface_buffer_release(), so that we only
> compute 'bu
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 10:20:05AM +0300, ppaala...@gmail.com wrote:
> From: Pekka Paalanen
>
> Apparently some compilers complain about set but not used variables
> 'available' and 'bufs', but I don't get the warning. Still, separate the
> debugging code from shm_surface_buffer_release(), so tha
From: Pekka Paalanen
Apparently some compilers complain about set but not used variables
'available' and 'bufs', but I don't get the warning. Still, separate the
debugging code from shm_surface_buffer_release(), so that we only
compute 'bufs' when it is printed. This should fix the warnings.
The