Hi, On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 10:25:45PM +0200, Andreas Mohr wrote: > Hi, > > > + ts->snap_down[swapped] = -inactive_area_left; > > + ts->snap_up[swapped] = max_x + inactive_area_right; > > + ts->snap_down[!swapped] = -inactive_area_top; > > + ts->snap_up[!swapped] = max_y + inactive_area_bottom; > > + ts->snap_down_on[swapped] = snap_left_on; > > + ts->snap_down_off[swapped] = snap_left_off; > > + ts->snap_up_on[swapped] = max_x - snap_right_on; > > + ts->snap_up_off[swapped] = max_x - snap_right_off; > > + ts->snap_down_on[!swapped] = snap_top_on; > > + ts->snap_down_off[!swapped] = snap_top_off; > > + ts->snap_up_on[!swapped] = max_y - snap_bottom_on; > > + ts->snap_up_off[!swapped] = max_y - snap_bottom_off; > > Could this perhaps be represented by _one_ struct definition > and two representations of it, one for swapped and one for non-swapped case or so? > (although sometimes it´s reverted logic, might need more thought) > Sounds like an awful lot of repeated array calculations for no overly good reason > (unless gcc happens to fully optimize it into oblivion automatically). -ETOOMUCHBEER Of course we need to swap orthogonal members individually, thus this kind of code. However maybe there´s still a more elegant way of doing this. Andreas Mohr -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-input" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
