KBufferedIO fix for branch?
thiagom at wanadoo.fr
Mon Dec 16 17:05:31 GMT 2002
Malte Starostik wrote:
>are there any objections against backporting
>f?r1=1.7&r2=1.8&f=h to the branch? About the second part: it seems no one
> ever used used a write buffered KExtendedSocket before, at least with more
> than one writeBlock() call before a flush(); the first part seems right to
> me, but did I miss something?
Actually, I had problems with bufferes getting deleted when they shouldn't
have. I thought I had corrected that problem... Yes, there it is. I did
correct it, but it seems I forgot to commit the fix! Shame on me!
It's ok to commit, by me. It's a bugfix and your bugfix is exactly like mine
(except mine uses first() instead of current()). Unless someone objects, I
think you should go ahead.
Thiago Macieira - UFOT Registry number: 1001
thiagom at mail.com
ICQ UIN: 1967141 PGP/GPG: 0x6EF45358
Registered Linux user #65028
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
More information about the kde-core-devel