On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 7:56 AM, Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@xxxxxx> wrote: > By declaring the task_cb parameter of type `void **`, the signature of > the get_next_task method suggests that the "task-specific cookie" can be > defined in that method, and the signatures of the start_failure and of > the task_finished methods declare that parameter of type `void *`, > suggesting that those methods are mere users of said cookie. > > That convention makes a total lot of sense, because the tasks are pretty > much dead when one of the latter two methods is called: there would be > little use to reset that cookie at that point because nobody would be > able to see the change afterwards. > > However, this is not what the code actually does. For all three methods, > it passes the *address* of pp->children[i].data. > > As reasoned above, this behavior makes no sense. So let's change the > implementation to adhere to the convention suggested by the signatures. > > Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@xxxxxx> My bad. Thanks for spotting and fixing! Reviewed-by: Stefan Beller <sbeller@xxxxxxxxxx>
