On Wed, 2006-07-12 at 02:27 +0530, Ritesh Khadgaray wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-07-11 at 09:28 -0400, Chris Toshok wrote:
> > No opinion on the rest of the patch, but this:
> >
> > > +static void
> > > +free_token (gchar *token)
> > > +{
> > > + gint i=0;
> > > + gboolean no=FALSE;
> > > +
> > > + for (i=0; (i < tokens_len); i++)
> > > + {
> > > + if (tokens[i] == token)
> > > + no = TRUE;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + if (!no)
> > > + g_free (token);
> > > +}
> > > +
> >
> > is more efficient as:
> >
> > static void
> > free_token (gchar *token)
> > {
> > gint i;
> >
> > for (i = 0; i < tokens_len; i ++)
> > if (tokens[i] == token)
> > return;
>
> out of curiosity, the first patch reads through the list
> and this patch, return if any one of the token is equal, anf not any
> following it.
>
> Would the below not be better ?
>
> for (i = 0; i < tokens_len; i ++)
> if (tokens[i] == token)
> break;
>
>
no, because you'd segfault trying to g_free() a static string.
The point of the code Toshok wrote was to no-op if the string was static
and to g_free() it if not.
Jeff
--
Jeffrey Stedfast
Evolution Hacker - Novell, Inc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - www.novell.com
_______________________________________________
Evolution-hackers mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
