On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 08:18:38AM +0100, Philipp Hahn wrote:
Your changed version only has the same behaviour, if the user-passed-in
function iter_func() never changes it-next, which you can't guarentee here.
You need to keep the next copy.
Yes, the for loop was changed to a while loop
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 11:19 AM, Christophe Fergeau
cferg...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 08:18:38AM +0100, Philipp Hahn wrote:
Your changed version only has the same behaviour, if the user-passed-in
function iter_func() never changes it-next, which you can't guarentee here.
You
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 05:05:15PM +0200, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote:
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 11:19 AM, Christophe Fergeau
cferg...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 08:18:38AM +0100, Philipp Hahn wrote:
Your changed version only has the same behaviour, if the user-passed-in
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 5:09 PM, Christophe Fergeau cferg...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 05:05:15PM +0200, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote:
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 11:19 AM, Christophe Fergeau
cferg...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 08:18:38AM +0100, Philipp Hahn wrote:
From: Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) zeesha...@gnome.org
In this particular case 'for' seems like a more natural choice as then
we don't need to update the iterator (which we were forgetting to do and
causing a hang in Boxes).
---
libvirt-gconfig/libvirt-gconfig-helpers.c |5 +
1 files changed, 1
Hello,
On Thursday 26 January 2012 06:10:28 Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote:
-it = node-children;
-while (it != NULL) {
+for (it = node-children; it != NULL; it = it-next) {
...
-xmlNodePtr next = it-next;
...
cont = iter_func(it, opaque);
...
-it = next;
