On Wed, 13 Mar 2019 11:51:09 -0700 Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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. I figured you would say as much ;-) > > > > > 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? I think it's the wording that bothers me: + * bcmp - Like memcmp but a non-zero return code simply indicates a non-match. What about: * bcmp - Like memcmp but non-zero only means a non-match Then in the description say that bcmp() callers must not expect anything more than zero and non-zero, as different implementations only need to return non-zero for non matches. The non-zero has no other meaning like it does in memcmp(). You could add that memcmp() itself is one implementation of bcmp() but not vice versa. -- Steve
