Subject:	RE: Non-compliant strxfrm
MIME-Version:	1.0
Date:	Mon, 1 Sep 2003 16:08:45 +0100
content-class:	urn:content-classes:message
X-MimeOLE:	Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.4417.0
Message-ID:	<F1A9C8D7A58D1B45A9C16FE7E3DA83D702188E@server.HME.hme.ltd.uk>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic:	Non-compliant strxfrm
Thread-Index:	AcNwjFx6rBzzbRU3T7OwnmxF1UP9+AACoO3Q
From:	"Melvin Curran" <Melvin AT HME DOT Ltd DOT uk>
To:	<djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com>
X-MIME-Autoconverted:	from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id h81F8sq23555
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com

Well, here is the output from the standard strxfrm for various
inputs:

    strxfrm(NULL,   "hello", 0) = 0
    strxfrm(answer, "hello", 9) = 5
    strxfrm(answer, "hello", 3) = 5

and here is what the standard says about the return value:

  3 The strxfrm function returns the length of the transformed string
    (not including the terminating null character). If the value
    returned is n or more, the contents of the array pointed to by s1
    are indeterminate.

  4 EXAMPLE The value of the following expression is the size of the
    array needed to hold the transformation of the string pointed to
    by s.
            1 + strxfrm(NULL, s, 0)

As you can see, the first call doesn't conform to the example given
(this is the main problem), and the third call gives an answer which
indicates that the tranformed string is indeterminate, and that isn't
the case here. Admittedly, the third answer might be ok given the
relationship between strcoll and strxfrm/strcmp as described in the
standard, but I decided to do it the way I did instead.

For comparison, here is what my function gives for answers:

    strxfrm(NULL,   "hello", 0) = 5
    strxfrm(answer, "hello", 9) = 5
    strxfrm(answer, "hello", 3) = 2

-----Original Message-----
From: DJ Delorie [mailto:dj AT delorie DOT com]
Sent: Monday, 01 September 2003 13:54
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: Non-compliant strxfrm



> I found that the DJGPP version was almost completely wrong.

In what way?

- Raw text -