On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 07:00:07PM +0100, René Scharfe wrote: > Am 24.01.2017 um 00:54 schrieb Jeff King: > > The speed looks like a reasonable outcome. I'm torn on the qsort_r() > > demo patch. I don't think it looks too bad. OTOH, I don't think I would > > want to deal with the opposite-argument-order versions. > > The code itself may look OK, but it's not really necessary and the special > implementation for Linux makes increases maintenance costs. Can we save it > for later and first give the common implemention a chance to prove itself? Sure, I'm OK with leaving it out for now. > > Is there any interest in people adding the ISO qsort_s() to their libc > > implementations? It seems like it's been a fair number of years by now. > > https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2014-12/msg00513.html is the last post > mentioning qsort_s on the glibc mailing list, but it didn't even make it > into https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/Development_Todo/Master. > Not sure what's planned in BSD land, didn't find anything (but didn't look > too hard). So it sounds like "no, not really". I think that's OK. I was mostly curious if we could expect our custom implementation to age out over time. -Peff