> On 2010-11-07 02:06:16, Dawit Alemayehu wrote:
> > /trunk/KDE/kdelibs/kdecore/network/netsupp.cpp, line 419
> > <http://svn.reviewboard.kde.org/r/5775/diff/2/?file=40689#file40689line419>
> >
> >     Actually, the better fix here would simply be to move the code block 
> > that allocates and checks q for NULL below the "if (h == NULL)" block.
> 
> Jaime Torres wrote:
>     @Albert: What I really wanted to say:
>     
>     const_iterator QList::begin () const
>     This is an overloaded function.
>

Sorry, but I don't understand what you mean with this comment.


- Albert


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://svn.reviewboard.kde.org/r/5775/#review8527
-----------------------------------------------------------


On 2010-11-07 14:17:29, Jaime Torres wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> http://svn.reviewboard.kde.org/r/5775/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated 2010-11-07 14:17:29)
> 
> 
> Review request for kdelibs.
> 
> 
> Summary
> -------
> 
> As I do not know if that kind of patches are allowed in the freeze period, I 
> ask for them together. I'll submit them individually.
> 
> 1. ktimezone.   Include a comment with the real use of refCount.
> 2. klocale_kde. From 469 queries to paths.end() to 1 (from 0.01% to 0% in 
> callgrind)
> 3. netsupp.     Remove a memory leak.
> 4. ksharedDataCache. Change the obsolete usleep (since 2001 or before) to 
> nanosleep.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   /trunk/KDE/kdelibs/kdecore/date/ktimezone.cpp 1193582 
>   /trunk/KDE/kdelibs/kdecore/localization/klocale_kde.cpp 1193582 
>   /trunk/KDE/kdelibs/kdecore/network/netsupp.cpp 1193582 
>   /trunk/KDE/kdelibs/kdecore/util/kshareddatacache.cpp 1193582 
> 
> Diff: http://svn.reviewboard.kde.org/r/5775/diff
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> No regressions in the unit tests.
> Working with them.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Jaime
> 
>

Reply via email to