On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 12:34:07AM -0500, bugs buggy wrote: > Revision: 6634 -- > [snip] > - I don't think I screwed up start-at-block-declaration rules for > MSVC, but given the size of these changes I can't be sure. > [snip] > Well you did. Though, at least nobody can say you aren't verbose > enough in the logs to see what is going on. ;)
The major reason for refactoring (r6634 was only a partial refactoring btw) actionUpdateDroid is because I got a segfault with actionUpdateDroid in the stack trace. That function's so horribly, badly, structured (although "structured" may be too strong an adjective) though that any kind of debugging becomes a David vs Goliath story (me being David without knowledge of Goliath's achilles heel). For that reason (and maintainability in general) that function's in need of refactoring. As for r6634 itself, I've looked over it multiple times to make damn sure that it would leave run-time behaviour unchanged. I just put less time in checking for C89 compatibility (I *did* check though, and did fix some of those var-decl-at-top-of-block errors *before* committing), causing some of those to slip through the cracks. I'm sorry for the inconvenience, but I just thought run-time behaviour to be more important than (easy to fix) compile time problems. I applied your patch to fix the C89 compatibility problems, although I would have been happy to fix them myself as well (e.g. with a copy-paste of the compiler output) if fixing that was too much of a problem or time-drain for you. > /me back this weekend to here the flames against this post. :) One semi-flame: I'm sure you mean "hear" (the verb, not "here" the noun). ;-) -- Giel
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Warzone-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
