On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 11:02 AM, Alistair Francis
<alistair.fran...@xilinx.com> wrote:
> The original ready < nhandles - 1 can be re-written as ready + 1 < nhandles
> which is the same confition that we are checking on the first
> itteration of the for loop. This means we can remove the if statement
> and let the for loop check the code.
>
> This also has the side effect of removing an invalid check as
> WAIT_OBJECT_0 was not subtracted from ready in the if statement.
>
> Signed-off-by: Alistair Francis <alistair.fran...@xilinx.com>
Ping!
> ---
> v2:
> - Rebase on master
> - Remove the first patch in the series as it was incorrect
>
> glib/gpoll.c | 5 ++---
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/glib/gpoll.c b/glib/gpoll.c
> index 265cb9210..b6c83d8ed 100644
> --- a/glib/gpoll.c
> +++ b/glib/gpoll.c
> @@ -235,9 +235,8 @@ poll_rest (gboolean poll_msgs,
> {
> /* Remove the handle that fired */
> int i;
> - if (ready < nhandles - 1)
> - for (i = ready - WAIT_OBJECT_0 + 1; i < nhandles; i++)
> - handles[i-1] = handles[i];
> + for (i = ready - WAIT_OBJECT_0 + 1; i < nhandles; i++)
> + handles[i-1] = handles[i];
> nhandles--;
> recursed_result = poll_rest (FALSE, handles, nhandles, fds, nfds,
> 0);
> return (recursed_result == -1) ? -1 : 1 + recursed_result;
> --
> 2.11.0
>
_______________________________________________
gtk-devel-list mailing list
gtk-devel-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
