On November 4, 2002 07:33 am, DanteAliegri wrote: > >>- const INT lx = himl->cx * pimldp->i + pimldp->xBitmap; > >>- const INT ly = pimldp->yBitmap; > >>+ static INT lx; > >>+ static INT ly; > >> > > > >Should this be really static? Can't this function be called reentrant? > > > > > > well, static is no worse than const ;) > but I'll leave that to dimitrie. > I was simply trying to cause as few changes as possible, and changing it > to static would make it a global , rather than > a stack variable, the same as const.
No, static is very, very different from const. I didn't even see that you've made that change. As it is, the patch's no good. Just drop the static. -- Dimi.
