| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author |
|---|
|
Since we should have far fewer dive computers than dives this straight
forward algorithm shouldn't cause any performance issues.
Signed-off-by: Dirk Hohndel <dirk@hohndel.org>
|
|
Much easier and clearer.
Signed-off-by: Dirk Hohndel <dirk@hohndel.org>
|
|
I keep trying to get to consistenct.
Completely hopeless.
Signed-off-by: Dirk Hohndel <dirk@hohndel.org>
|
|
[Dirk Hohndel: this overlapped with my commit 09e7c61feeea ("Consistently
use for_each_dive (and use it correctly)") so I took the
pieces that I had missed]
Signed-off-by: Anton Lundin <glance@acc.umu.se>
Signed-off-by: Dirk Hohndel <dirk@hohndel.org>
|
|
C specs says that we can safelly free a NULL pointer, so there's no reason
to check if it's null before freeing it.
Signed-off-by: Tomaz Canabrava <tomaz.canabrava@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Dirk Hohndel <dirk@hohndel.org>
|
|
The DiveList classes were a partial mess (and some of it is still in a
messy state). The classes that deal with it where done in 'qtHelpers.h',
the extern global variable in dive.h, a few methods here and there. This
concentrates most - but not all - functions in their own file. The reason
for that is to make the new developer faster when looking for things: if
it's a divecomputer related method, it should be in a single file, not
scattered around.
Signed-off-by: Tomaz Canabrava <tomaz.canabrava@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Dirk Hohndel <dirk@hohndel.org>
|
Dirk Hohndel
Anton Lundin
Tomaz Canabrava