On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 8:08 AM, Tiago Vignatti <[email protected]> wrote: > introduced in e1165632bdfbd720889ed1adf5f7ab338032c0ee.
Actually, it would have been an earlier commit since Peter just moved this code to a convenience function in that commit. Anyway... > > Signed-off-by: Tiago Vignatti <[email protected]> > --- > hw/xfree86/common/xf86Config.c | 3 ++- > 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/hw/xfree86/common/xf86Config.c b/hw/xfree86/common/xf86Config.c > index 7a23253..114bdc3 100644 > --- a/hw/xfree86/common/xf86Config.c > +++ b/hw/xfree86/common/xf86Config.c > @@ -1459,8 +1459,9 @@ configInputDevices(XF86ConfLayoutPtr layout, > serverLayoutPtr servlayoutp) > while (irp) { > indp[count] = xf86AllocateInput(); > if (!configInput(indp[count], irp->iref_inputdev, X_CONFIG)) { > - while(count--) > + do { > free(indp[count]); > + } while(count--); > free(indp); > return FALSE; > } Since the original code was doing a post-test decrement, wouldn't it have wound all the way down to "free(indp[0])"? If it was "while (--count)", I'd agree this is needed. -- Dan _______________________________________________ [email protected]: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
