Re: gdk_pixbuf_loader_write and short files

["Matthias Clasen" <matthiasc poet de>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Havoc Pennington" <hp redhat com>
To: "Matthias Clasen" <matthiasc poet de>
Cc: <gtk-devel-list gnome org>
Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2001 11:28 PM
Subject: Re: gdk_pixbuf_loader_write and short files


>
> "Matthias Clasen" <matthiasc poet de> writes:
> > Thats why I added retval as a condition in the following if, maybe you
> > missed that.
> > I was under the impression that gdk_pixbuf_loader_load_module would
> > return false if it an error occurred, in addition to possibly
> > setting error.
>
> I did miss it, but it looks like load_module actually returns the
> number of bytes handled so far or something.
>

Looking at the calls of that function in gdk-pixbuf-loader.c:

l.308:  if (gdk_pixbuf_loader_load_module (loader, NULL, error) == 0)
             return 0;

l.432: tmp = NULL;
         gdk_pixbuf_loader_load_module (retval, image_type, &tmp);
         if (tmp != NULL)


               g_propagate_error (error, tmp);
               g_object_unref (G_OBJECT (retval));
               return NULL;
            }

So it seems that both ways of checking load_module errors are acceptable.
Tell
me which style you prefer and I'll adjust my patch.

Matthias