Mail Archives: djgpp-workers/1998/02/04/14:14:56
On Wed, 4 Feb 1998, Bill Currie wrote:
> Even if these functions were implemented as functions rather than
> macros,
DJGPP has both macros *and* functions. It is actually a requirement of
the ANSI standard that each function implemented as a macro has also a
real function version in the library (so that you could, for example,
pass its address to some other function).
> it wouldn't one bit of difference, passing a char (signed,
> unsigned or ambiguous) would ALWAYS cause `unexpected' results, the
> compiler will always do something funny when it extends the bits.
This thread was born out of a concern that our ctype functions don't
support EOF. ANSI C requires this support. Knowing that funny things
will happen in this case doesn't seem to help a bit when we face the sad
conclusion that our libc is not fully compliant with the ANSI C standard.
> So really, the djgpp ctype.h header file should just make sure c is in
> the right range (don't want array bounds checking to fail) and be done
> with it. Forget about coping with `char's of any flavour, they're
> irrellevant.
Can you suggest a change for the macros?
- Raw text -