ZheNing Hu wrote:
> Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx> 于2021年5月29日周六 下午11:24写道：
> >
> > Phillip Wood wrote:
> > > On 27/05/2021 17:36, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> > > > ZheNing Hu via GitGitGadget wrote:
> > > > [...]
> > > >> +static int memcasecmp(const void *vs1, const void *vs2, size_t n)
> > > >
> > > > Why void *? We can delcare as char *.
> > >
> > > If you look at how this function is used you'll see
> > > int (*cmp_fn)(const void *, const void *, size_t);
> > > cmp_fn = s->sort_flags & REF_SORTING_ICASE
> > > ? memcasecmp : memcmp;
> >
> > Yeah, but why?
> >
> > We know we are comparing two char *. Presumably the reason is that
> > memcmp and memcasecmp use void *, but that could be remedied with:
> >
> > cmp_fn = (int (*)(const char *, const char *, size_t))memcmp;
> >
> > That way the same cmp_fn could be used for the two cases.
> >
> > Either way I don't care particularly much. It also could be possible to
> > use void * and do the casting in tolower().
> >
>
> I agree with Phillip's point of view here:
> It would be better for memcasecmp and memcmp to be consistent.
Fair enough.
> static int memcasecmp(const void *vs1, const void *vs2, size_t n)
> {
> - size_t i;
> - const char *s1 = (const char *)vs1;
> - const char *s2 = (const char *)vs2;
> -
> - for (i = 0; i < n; i++) {
> - unsigned char u1 = s1[i];
> - unsigned char u2 = s2[i];
> - int U1 = toupper (u1);
> - int U2 = toupper (u2);
> - int diff = (UCHAR_MAX <= INT_MAX ? U1 - U2
> - : U1 < U2 ? -1 : U2 < U1);
> + const char *s1 = (const void *)vs1;
> + const char *s2 = (const void *)vs2;
vs1 is already a const void *, and there's not much point in adding
another line:
const char *s1 = vs1, *s2 = vs2;
Cheers.
--
Felipe Contreras
