We don't need the whole struct here, especially do we not wanna change it.
Therefore only pass in what's really needed, so it gets easier to understand.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
We don't need the whole struct here, especially do we not wanna change it.
Therefore only pass in what's really needed, so it gets easier to understand.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
We don't need the whole struct here, especially do we not wanna change it.
Therefore only pass in what's really needed, so it gets easier to understand.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Use static initializaton as much as possible and drop unnecessary
or duplicate zero assignments.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
This macro isn't used anywhere (also not in drivers), so no need
to keep it around any longer.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Only key difference that calloc(), in contrast to rellocarray(),
is zero-initializing. The overhead is hard to measure on today's
machines, and it's safer programming practise to always allocate
zero-initialized, so one can't forget to do it explicitly.
Cocci rule:
@@
expression COUNT;
expression LEN;
@@
- xallocarray(COUNT,LEN)
+ calloc(COUNT,LEN)
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Only key difference that calloc(), in contrast to rellocarray(),
is zero-initializing. The overhead is hard to measure on today's
machines, and it's safer programming practise to always allocate
zero-initialized, so one can't forget to do it explicitly.
Cocci rule:
@@
expression COUNT;
expression LEN;
@@
- xallocarray(COUNT,LEN)
+ calloc(COUNT,LEN)
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Only key difference that calloc(), in contrast to rellocarray(),
is zero-initializing. The overhead is hard to measure on today's
machines, and it's safer programming practise to always allocate
zero-initialized, so one can't forget to do it explicitly.
Cocci rule:
@@
expression COUNT;
expression LEN;
@@
- xallocarray(COUNT,LEN)
+ calloc(COUNT,LEN)
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Only key difference that calloc(), in contrast to rellocarray(),
is zero-initializing. The overhead is hard to measure on today's
machines, and it's safer programming practise to always allocate
zero-initialized, so one can't forget to do it explicitly.
Cocci rule:
@@
expression COUNT;
expression LEN;
@@
- xallocarray(COUNT,LEN)
+ calloc(COUNT,LEN)
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Only key difference that calloc(), in contrast to rellocarray(),
is zero-initializing. The overhead is hard to measure on today's
machines, and it's safer programming practise to always allocate
zero-initialized, so one can't forget to do it explicitly.
Cocci rule:
@@
expression COUNT;
expression LEN;
@@
- xallocarray(COUNT,LEN)
+ calloc(COUNT,LEN)
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Only key difference that calloc(), in contrast to rellocarray(),
is zero-initializing. The overhead is hard to measure on today's
machines, and it's safer programming practise to always allocate
zero-initialized, so one can't forget to do it explicitly.
Cocci rule:
@@
expression COUNT;
expression LEN;
@@
- xallocarray(COUNT,LEN)
+ calloc(COUNT,LEN)
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Only key difference that calloc(), in contrast to rellocarray(),
is zero-initializing. The overhead is hard to measure on today's
machines, and it's safer programming practise to always allocate
zero-initialized, so one can't forget to do it explicitly.
Cocci rule:
@@
expression COUNT;
expression LEN;
@@
- xallocarray(COUNT,LEN)
+ calloc(COUNT,LEN)
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Only key difference that calloc(), in contrast to rellocarray(),
is zero-initializing. The overhead is hard to measure on today's
machines, and it's safer programming practise to always allocate
zero-initialized, so one can't forget to do it explicitly.
Cocci rule:
@@
expression COUNT;
expression LEN;
@@
- xallocarray(COUNT,LEN)
+ calloc(COUNT,LEN)
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Only key difference that calloc(), in contrast to rellocarray(),
is zero-initializing. The overhead is hard to measure on today's
machines, and it's safer programming practise to always allocate
zero-initialized, so one can't forget to do it explicitly.
Cocci rule:
@@
expression COUNT;
expression LEN;
@@
- xallocarray(COUNT,LEN)
+ calloc(COUNT,LEN)
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Only key difference that calloc(), in contrast to rellocarray(),
is zero-initializing. The overhead is hard to measure on today's
machines, and it's safer programming practise to always allocate
zero-initialized, so one can't forget to do it explicitly.
Cocci rule:
@@
expression COUNT;
expression LEN;
@@
- xallocarray(COUNT,LEN)
+ calloc(COUNT,LEN)
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Only key difference that calloc(), in contrast to rellocarray(),
is zero-initializing. The overhead is hard to measure on today's
machines, and it's safer programming practise to always allocate
zero-initialized, so one can't forget to do it explicitly.
Cocci rule:
@@
expression COUNT;
expression LEN;
@@
- xallocarray(COUNT,LEN)
+ calloc(COUNT,LEN)
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Only key difference that calloc(), in contrast to rellocarray(),
is zero-initializing. The overhead is hard to measure on today's
machines, and it's safer programming practise to always allocate
zero-initialized, so one can't forget to do it explicitly.
Cocci rule:
@@
expression COUNT;
expression LEN;
@@
- xallocarray(COUNT,LEN)
+ calloc(COUNT,LEN)
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Only key difference that calloc(), in contrast to rellocarray(),
is zero-initializing. The overhead is hard to measure on today's
machines, and it's safer programming practise to always allocate
zero-initialized, so one can't forget to do it explicitly.
Cocci rule:
@@
expression COUNT;
expression LEN;
@@
- xallocarray(COUNT,LEN)
+ calloc(COUNT,LEN)
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Only key difference that calloc(), in contrast to rellocarray(),
is zero-initializing. The overhead is hard to measure on today's
machines, and it's safer programming practise to always allocate
zero-initialized, so one can't forget to do it explicitly.
Cocci rule:
@@
expression COUNT;
expression LEN;
@@
- xallocarray(COUNT,LEN)
+ calloc(COUNT,LEN)
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Only key difference that calloc(), in contrast to rellocarray(),
is zero-initializing. The overhead is hard to measure on today's
machines, and it's safer programming practise to always allocate
zero-initialized, so one can't forget to do it explicitly.
Cocci rule:
@@
expression COUNT;
expression LEN;
@@
- xallocarray(COUNT,LEN)
+ calloc(COUNT,LEN)
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Only key difference that calloc(), in contrast to rellocarray(),
is zero-initializing. The overhead is hard to measure on today's
machines, and it's safer programming practise to always allocate
zero-initialized, so one can't forget to do it explicitly.
Cocci rule:
@@
expression COUNT;
expression LEN;
@@
- xallocarray(COUNT,LEN)
+ calloc(COUNT,LEN)
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Only key difference that calloc(), in contrast to rellocarray(),
is zero-initializing. The overhead is hard to measure on today's
machines, and it's safer programming practise to always allocate
zero-initialized, so one can't forget to do it explicitly.
Cocci rule:
@@
expression COUNT;
expression LEN;
@@
- xallocarray(COUNT,LEN)
+ calloc(COUNT,LEN)
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Only key difference that calloc(), in contrast to rellocarray(),
is zero-initializing. The overhead is hard to measure on today's
machines, and it's safer programming practise to always allocate
zero-initialized, so one can't forget to do it explicitly.
Cocci rule:
@@
expression COUNT;
expression LEN;
@@
- xallocarray(COUNT,LEN)
+ calloc(COUNT,LEN)
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Only key difference that calloc(), in contrast to rellocarray(),
is zero-initializing. The overhead is hard to measure on today's
machines, and it's safer programming practise to always allocate
zero-initialized, so one can't forget to do it explicitly.
Cocci rule:
@@
expression COUNT;
expression LEN;
@@
- xallocarray(COUNT,LEN)
+ calloc(COUNT,LEN)
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Only key difference that calloc(), in contrast to rellocarray(),
is zero-initializing. The overhead is hard to measure on today's
machines, and it's safer programming practise to always allocate
zero-initialized, so one can't forget to do it explicitly.
Cocci rule:
@@
expression COUNT;
expression LEN;
@@
- xallocarray(COUNT,LEN)
+ calloc(COUNT,LEN)
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Not used by any external modules, and an implementation
detail anyways, so no need to keep it in public header.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
USE_BACKGROUND_PIXEL and USE_BORDER_PIXEL aren't used anywhere,
neither in Xserver nor any drivers, so can be dropped now.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
../hw/xwin/InitOutput.c:89:2: warning: redundant redeclaration of ‘winValidateArgs’ [-Wredundant-decls]
89 | winValidateArgs(void);
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In file included from ../hw/xwin/InitOutput.c:35:
../hw/xwin/win.h:1008:1: note: previous declaration of ‘winValidateArgs’ was here
1008 | winValidateArgs(void);
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
* use their actual path instead of relying this to be in compiler's
include path list.
* no need to do it only conditionally, no #ifdef needed
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
* use their actual path instead of relying this to be in compiler's
include path list.
* no need to do it only conditionally, no #ifdef needed
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
* use their actual path instead of relying this to be in compiler's
include path list.
* no need to do it only conditionally, no #ifdef needed
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
* use their actual path instead of relying this to be in compiler's
include path list.
* no need to do it only conditionally, no #ifdef needed
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
* use their actual path instead of relying this to be in compiler's
include path list.
* no need to do it only conditionally, no #ifdef needed
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
* use their actual path instead of relying this to be in compiler's
include path list.
* no need to do it only conditionally, no #ifdef needed
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
* use their actual path instead of relying this to be in compiler's
include path list.
* no need to do it only conditionally, no #ifdef needed
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
* use their actual path instead of relying this to be in compiler's
include path list.
* no need to do it only conditionally, no #ifdef needed
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
* use their actual path instead of relying this to be in compiler's
include path list.
* no need to do it only conditionally, no #ifdef needed
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
It's last users gone about 15 years ago with commit
a715de7f11, so no need
to keep it around any longer.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
