Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > To make matters more fun, apparently[1] there are multiple variants of > qsort_r with different argument orders. _And_ apparently Microsoft > defines qsort_s, but it's not quite the same thing. But all of that can > be dealt with by having more specific flags (HAVE_GNU_QSORT_R, etc). > > It just seems like we should be able to do a better job of using the > system qsort in many cases. If we were to go that route, perhaps we shouldn't have HAVE_QSORT_S so that Microsoft folks won't define it by mistake (instead perhaps call it HAVE_ISO_QSORT_S or something). I like your suggestion in general. The body of git_qsort_s() on systems without ISO_QSORT_S can do - GNU qsort_r() without any change in the parameters, - Microsoft qsort_s() with parameter reordered, or - Apple/BSD qsort_r() with parameter reordered. and that would cover the major platforms. Eh, wait. BSD and Microsoft have paramters reordered in the callback comparison function. I suspect that would not fly very well.