On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 02:51:33PM +0300, Alon Levy wrote: > On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 01:37:26PM +0200, Christophe Fergeau wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 01:46:26PM +0300, Alon Levy wrote: > > > On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 01:12:26PM +0300, Yonit Halperin wrote: > > > > --- > > > > server/red_worker.c | 5 +++-- > > > > 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/server/red_worker.c b/server/red_worker.c > > > > index 07782c8..5350195 100644 > > > > --- a/server/red_worker.c > > > > +++ b/server/red_worker.c > > > > @@ -11348,10 +11348,11 @@ static void dump_bitmap(RedWorker *worker, > > > > SpiceBitmap *bitmap, uint32_t group_i > > > > } > > > > /* writing the data */ > > > > for (i = 0; i < bitmap->data->num_chunks; i++) { > > > > + int j; > > > > > > Missed this in v1, sorry - shouldn't this be defined at the function > > > start? Not a big deal. > > > > In my opinion, it's better to keep variable declaration in the smallest > > enclosing block. > > I agree it's better. I commented out of a misplaced thought we should > support C-something compilers that don't allow it. I take it back.
Oh, declaring variables at the beginning of a C block as is done here is supported by all C compilers I know of. It's declaring variables in the middle of a block (after some non-declarations lines of code) which is not supported by all compilers. In this case, I don't think this will cause any issues. Christophe
pgpTExc5QWltb.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Spice-devel mailing list Spice-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/spice-devel