Remove unnecessary lock in gfxdraw #3280
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
All the surrounding code is written to assume the surface has already been locked (which it has). Possibly this was a copy paste error many years ago, it's been in pygame/pygame-ce for at least 9 years.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
All the surrounding code is written to assume the surface has already been locked (which it has). Possibly this was a copy paste error many years ago, it's been in pygame/pygame-ce for at least 9 years.
If you look at the source of
pixelColorvspixelColorNolock, they do the exact same thing, except the former locks and unlocks the surface, which is unnecessary.I noticed this when looking into porting gfxdraw to SDL3.