On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 01:51:35PM +0700, Mikhail Gusarov wrote: > > Twas brillig at 08:58:07 10.05.2010 UTC+10 when [email protected] did > gyre and gimble: > > PH> Please send patches to the list, it'd make it a lot easier to > PH> review than having to copy from the repo. > > [/me notes: X server patches to list, libraries usually reviewed by Alan > - as pull request] Actually the sheer size of rename patch was what held > me from doing it in first place. > > PH> Also, I noticed your Signed-off-by: is missing from the commits. > > Fixed. > > PH> commit 181bc54d4508bef43f409ff47c033d13e56b964a > PH> Clean {X,XNF}{alloc,calloc,realloc,free,strdup} from pre-C89 baggage > > PH> Xstrdup has a Warning comment, XNFstrdup has the same comment but > PH> without the "Warning:". Might be good to fix that up for > PH> consistency. > > There are comments added to header in the later patch, so I decided to > remove both from .c. Anyway it's the documentation about what functions > do, not how they are implemented. > > PH> It might be worth adding some simple test cases to the test/ > PH> directory to make sure these ones don't break and do what they're > PH> supposed to. I realize that given what they do, that seems a bit > PH> over the top, so it's your call. > > Yeah, those are _too_ simple, and description was extracted from > existing implementation, not from careful review of callers. > > PH> Change the declaration for Xrealloc for consistency. > > Uhm, what exactly do you mean? I don't see any inconsistency.
declaration still has pointer, implementation has void*, right? same for XNFrealloc. again, not that it matters, but.. Cheers, Peter _______________________________________________ [email protected]: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
