Huw Davies wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 08, 2006 at 09:56:54PM +0000, Andrew Talbot wrote:
>> @@ -666,16 +672,20 @@
>> if(psA->cPasteEntries > 0)
>> {
>> UINT i;
>> - for(i = 0; i < psA->cPasteEntries; i++)
>> +
>> + for(i = psA->cPasteEntries; i != 0;)
>
> Was there any need for this?
>
> Huw.
Hi Huw,
At the time, I thought it good to return the memory in the reverse order to
which it was acquired, in the same way that one gives back stack memory. I
also thought it might reduce the chance of heap fragmentation, slightly.
I shall submit a version that doesn't alter the loop.
-- Andy.
