On 2/1/22 17:59, Erik Skultety wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 01, 2022 at 05:23:52PM +0100, Michal Prívozník wrote:
>> On 2/1/22 17:18, Erik Skultety wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 03:53:42PM +0100, Michal Privoznik wrote:
There are few places where the g_steal_pointer() is open coded.
Switch
On Tue, Feb 01, 2022 at 05:23:52PM +0100, Michal Prívozník wrote:
> On 2/1/22 17:18, Erik Skultety wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 03:53:42PM +0100, Michal Privoznik wrote:
> >> There are few places where the g_steal_pointer() is open coded.
> >> Switch them to calling the g_steal_pointer()
On 2/1/22 17:18, Erik Skultety wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 03:53:42PM +0100, Michal Privoznik wrote:
>> There are few places where the g_steal_pointer() is open coded.
>> Switch them to calling the g_steal_pointer() function instead.
>> Generated by the following spatch:
>>
>> @ rule1 @
>>
On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 03:53:42PM +0100, Michal Privoznik wrote:
> There are few places where the g_steal_pointer() is open coded.
> Switch them to calling the g_steal_pointer() function instead.
> Generated by the following spatch:
>
> @ rule1 @
> expression a, b;
> @@
> <...
> - b
There are few places where the g_steal_pointer() is open coded.
Switch them to calling the g_steal_pointer() function instead.
Generated by the following spatch:
@ rule1 @
expression a, b;
@@
<...
- b = a;
... when != b
- a = NULL;
+ b = g_steal_pointer();
...>