On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 11:40 AM Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 13 Mar 2019 11:17:15 -0700
> Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > +#ifndef __HAVE_ARCH_BCMP
> > +/**
> > + * bcmp - Like memcmp but a non-zero return code simply indicates a non-match.
> > + * @cs: One area of memory.
> > + * @ct: Another area of memory.
> > + * @count: The size of the areas.
> > + */
> > +#undef bcmp
> > +int bcmp(const void *cs, const void *ct, size_t count)
> > +{
> > + return memcmp(cs, ct, count);
>
> This is confusing where the comment says "like memcmp but .." and then
> just returns memcmp() unmodified. If anything, I would expect to see
>
> return !!memcmp(cs, ct, conut);
That's more work than strictly needed. memcmp already provides the
semantics of bcmp. memcmp just provides more meaning to the
signedness of the return code, whereas bcmp does not.
>
> or have a better comment explaining why its the same.
I could add something about "the signedness of the return code not
providing any meaning." What would you like to see in such a comment?
--
Thanks,
~Nick Desaulniers
