Am Fri, 10 Apr 2009 22:54:45 -0300 schrieb Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri:
> On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 7:34 PM, Enlightenment SVN
> <no-re...@enlightenment.org> wrote:
>
> > - now used Eina_List for storage (I hope I used it correct...)
>
> > + Eina_List *l = NULL;
> > + Evas_Object *o = NULL;
> > +
> > + // delete the list
> > + for (l = xscreensaver_list; l; l = eina_list_next(l))
> > + {
> > + xscreensaver_list = eina_list_remove_list(xscreensaver_list,
> > l);
> > + }
> > +
>
> please notice:
>
> l = NULL is dead assignment, the first thing you do later is to "l =
> xscreensaver_list, so l = NULL is useless and will trigger an alert in
> llvm/clang.
Do you really think this is a "problem" that needs to be fixed? Would
be the same here:
static void
_cb_disable_check_list(void *data, Evas_Object *obj)
{
Eina_List *list = (Eina_List*) data;
Eina_List *l = NULL;
Evas_Object *o = NULL;
for (l = list, o = eina_list_data_get(l); l; l = eina_list_next(l),
o = eina_list_data_get(l))
{
e_widget_disabled_set(o, !e_widget_check_checked_get(obj));
}
}
For sure here you're right, but in general I prefer setting new
pointers to NULL if the assignment is not in the next line. If someone
else later changes the code otherwise this is a source for potential
bugs. But here you're right and I could change it.
regards
Andreas
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by:
High Quality Requirements in a Collaborative Environment.
Download a free trial of Rational Requirements Composer Now!
http://p.sf.net/sfu/www-ibm-com
_______________________________________________
enlightenment-devel mailing list
enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
