I think it used to be faster to count down and compare against zero on some
CPU's (probably 680x0 or so), and you do see that a bit in the ancient X code.
I can't see any other reason to do the counting this way here, so will look into
turning it around.
-alan-
On 02/ 5/11 02:47 AM, walter harms wrote:
>
>
> for (i = num_typed_args - typed[j]; i > 0; i--, arg++) {
>
> IMHO this violates the rule of least surprise. the other way around is much
> more
> common. Since i is only a counter i do not see why we need to count down.
> (More adventures people may want to use memmove, but i did not see the rest
> of code)
>
> for (i=0; i < num_typed_args - typed[j]; i++) {
> *arg = *(arg+1);
> arg++;
> }
>
> just my 2 cents,
>
> re,
> wh
>
>
>
> Am 05.02.2011 07:29, schrieb Alan Coopersmith:
>> Fix originally created by Leo Binchy for Sun to fix Solaris bug 1211553:
>> XtVaCreateManagedWidget with list of resources XtVaTypedArg cause core dump
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Alan Coopersmith <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> src/Resources.c | 2 +-
>> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/src/Resources.c b/src/Resources.c
>> index 304d3d5..dc0f563 100644
>> --- a/src/Resources.c
>> +++ b/src/Resources.c
>> @@ -857,7 +857,7 @@ static XtCacheRef *GetResources(
>> register XtTypedArg* arg = typed_args + typed[j] - 1;
>> register int i;
>>
>> - for (i = num_typed_args - typed[j]; i; i--, arg++) {
>> + for (i = num_typed_args - typed[j]; i > 0; i--, arg++) {
>> *arg = *(arg+1);
>> }
>> num_typed_args--;
--
-Alan Coopersmith- [email protected]
Oracle Solaris Platform Engineering: X Window System
_______________________________________________
[email protected]: X.Org development
Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel
Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
