On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 11:48:38AM -0700, Aaron Plattner wrote:
> On 09/26/2011 10:53 PM, Jamey Sharp wrote:
> >- for (i = nRects; i--> 0; ) {
> >...
> >+ for (i = nRects; i--> 0; ) {
>
> Whitespace error: "i--> 0"The patch got mangled somewhere in transit. In my git tree, and in Patchwork, it is correct: "i-- > 0". http://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/7362/ Your reply has more places where whitespace mysteriously moved around operators, too... > >+ free((char *) pRects); > > While you're at it, could you remove this cast please? I didn't really want to make unrelated changes, but I sympathize, so I've amended this locally. > >+ } else > >+ XSetClipMask(xnestDisplay, xnestGC(pGC), None); > > I'm wavering between asking you to fix the indentation since you're > replacing the whole function anyway, but it would make the file > inconsistent. Better to change it all at one go, I guess. Yeah, I don't think that belongs in this commit. Actually, I want to delete Xnest entirely, along with all the other non-xfree86 DDXes. :-) > >diff --git a/include/gcstruct.h b/include/gcstruct.h > >index fb9ee0d..ed598fc 100644 > >--- a/include/gcstruct.h > >+++ b/include/gcstruct.h > >@@ -278,13 +278,12 @@ typedef struct _GC { > > unsigned int arcMode : 1; > > unsigned int subWindowMode : 1; > > unsigned int graphicsExposures : 1; > >- unsigned int clientClipType : 2; /* CT_<kind> */ > > This leaves a misleading comment in gc.h: > > /* clientClipType field in GC */ > #define CT_NONE 0 > #define CT_PIXMAP 1 > #define CT_REGION 2 > [...] True. I've amended the following patch locally; does it help? diff --git a/include/gc.h b/include/gc.h index 2079cfa..a28b419 100644 --- a/include/gc.h +++ b/include/gc.h @@ -54,7 +54,7 @@ SOFTWARE. #include "screenint.h" /* for ScreenPtr */ #include "pixmap.h" /* for DrawablePtr */ -/* clientClipType field in GC */ +/* clip type argument for ChangeClip */ #define CT_NONE 0 #define CT_PIXMAP 1 #define CT_REGION 2 The defines are also used for the clientClipType field in the Picture structure, which might call for a similar patch someday, but I don't think that calls for a mention in gc.h. Thanks, Jamey
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ [email protected]: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
