walter harms <[email protected]> writes: > nitpicking, i would do it the other way around (i++), > i have learned that ppl are bad at reading that work that way. > (note: perhaps nspans could be unsigned to avoid fancy problems > with extreme large values.)
I'm following the local coding style which does the loop this way for some reason. Either would be fine; keeping the stuff in the file consistent seems valuable, but fixing both to operate in a sane direction would also be fine. Perhaps that should be done in a patch before applying this change? > this looks like a case for calloc(). As Eric says, calloc clears the memory. As we may well draw significantly fewer spans than we allocate (due to dashing), not trashing even more of the cache seems useful. I'll answer the obvious overflow question in my response to Eric's direct question about that. > IMHO FillSpans should should check nspans (note:no such checks otherwise). That would be nice, but that's an ABI change, which we should avoid > just my 2 cents, > wh Thanks for your review! -- [email protected]
pgppQhake4DqP.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ [email protected]: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
