On 10.03.2011 00:23, Keith Packard wrote:
Please clean up the whitespace mistakes in this patch and resubmit.
You aren't seriously editing code on Windows, are you?
Hmm.
I checked for the following factors:
- Consistent use of spaces versus tabs compared to the old code: check
- No trailing
On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 11:07:35 +0200, Erkki Seppala erkki.sepp...@vincit.fi
wrote:
Also, I don't think it can be a CRLF-issue, because the Internet text
message format prohibits lines with CRLF and the mail isn't encoded in
any special way. (In any case, my email agent shows that all messages
On 10.03.2011 11:27, kei...@keithp.com wrote:
Oh. You sent it to my intel email address. I'll bet exchange mangled
it. I hadn't even thought to check that. kei...@keithp.com is a far
better plan for useful email. Sigh.
Oops. Yeah, I had actually intended to send to that address, but still
There were two memory leaks in the function: one was the lack of free
for enabled, the other was the full lack of releasing anything when
configuration was too small. The first issue was fixed by adding the
missing free, the other was addressed by replacing the duplicate
memory releasing sequences
On Tue, Mar 08, 2011 at 01:11:50PM +0200, Erkki Seppälä wrote:
There were two memory leaks in the function: one was the lack of free
for enabled, the other was the full lack of releasing anything when
configuration was too small. The first issue was fixed by adding the
missing free, the other
