On Oct 2, 2009, at 16:17, Michel Dänzer wrote:
On Fri, 2009-10-02 at 23:10 +0200, Martin Ettl wrote:diff --git a/exa/exa_classic.c b/exa/exa_classic.c index 1eff570..c9c7534 100644 --- a/exa/exa_classic.c +++ b/exa/exa_classic.c @@ -144,14 +144,14 @@ Bool exaModifyPixmapHeader_classic(PixmapPtr pPixmap, int width, int height, int depth, int bitsPerPixel, int devKind, pointer pPixData) { + if (!pPixmap) + return FALSE; + ScreenPtr pScreen = pPixmap->drawable.pScreen; ExaScreenPrivPtr pExaScr; ExaPixmapPrivPtr pExaPixmap; Bool ret; - if (!pPixmap) - return FALSE; - pExaScr = ExaGetScreenPriv(pScreen); pExaPixmap = ExaGetPixmapPriv(pPixmap);... Mixing code and declarations is a C99 feature, and I'm not sure werequire a C99 compiler yet. I'm not sure that that these tests serve anyreal purpose, they can probably just be removed.
Well, they serve a purpose, and I'd like to keep them in for sanity purposes.
Those checks were misplaced as a result of ac7ac913fd98ea359c05c89968ab53a3223615b4 which is only a few months old now... better safe than sorry.
Move the "pScreen = pPixmap->drawable.pScreen" out of the declarations and after the check.
--Jeremy
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ xorg-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
