On Oct 3, 2009, at 03:53, Michel Dänzer wrote:
On Fri, 2009-10-02 at 18:25 -0700, Jeremy Huddleston wrote: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 we require a C99 compiler yet. I'm not sure that that these tests serve any real purpose, they can probably just be removed.Well, they serve a purpose, and I'd like to keep them in for sanity purposes.What purpose is that? If these functions were actually called with a NULL PixmapPtr, surely the current code would have crashed with a segmentation fault.
Right, but the way I look at it: 1) That code was added to git about 6 weeks ago2) You don't know how that code might be called in the future. Better safe than sorry.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ xorg-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
