X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 18AE0385828B
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cygwin.com;
	s=default; t=1704265187;
	bh=GKs5G/nh/7L6toIi0nwsDOAUyx0inDmJGxHnlsrmsVQ=;
	h=Date:To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:
	 List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe:From:Reply-To:
	 From;
	b=DzJ3GHKnBAOs/X7irMmDT3dGsl0v/4Cm4zgpOhqzNetRBpfyQCQkv+7fI36vYY3Od
	 +thdlbIrqyJxwKVLw9zbPiTzNMDoevHwfJTo+XFi8c7jd3OlQtUWFP2NhoM79oNRx5
	 zaqXrwSLVst3WJ4yjE/FcFE8hItrRLo2TGFM8m/I=
X-Original-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org C60BC3858292
ARC-Filter: OpenARC Filter v1.0.0 sourceware.org C60BC3858292
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1704265125; cv=none;
 b=WCCvQNg8541O2PlDvo1b2boPoOEWu2fPyUU/pQsGFYwkw0JQI5WXcJI4FL8uLdFGTuMzLAtY5cnd6E0NJRDeygrseoeYZBxVxK7GF74ZJ/JtS/CIFopVWqonXyuG/qB6/GNoa1lP9MmpcOo6LHadD2/QAMg2iBQkMYjh8NfoWGk=
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key;
 t=1704265125; c=relaxed/simple;
 bh=T3C582HLA/AfYQdVjyI10Y6osilsZUotqWQR808JCI8=;
 h=Date:From:To:Subject:Message-Id:Mime-Version;
 b=o/JwgCxv7Czz8VPUFoA0rJbhqYGpJJETqtVmrMIFS5S1RSaD+7bTF6/vJEXEsDqkqftlYb76u+uLQCHg7AkaOwF2YXpqCgxcuFl3JmDuqIYSDZQ+NJ3nULnUw66dnh1NhpF0m4VPLXzaccUJh8gGTTkBKO8/vrrTavHFApHeoPA=
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; server2.sourceware.org
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2024 15:58:39 +0900
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: Possibly buggy use of ctype.h macros.
Message-Id: <20240103155839.ecb5eddf00ccab39c882fe61@nifty.ne.jp>
In-Reply-To: <382d26d43e66b45eca9facdd8bb9063d@kylheku.com>
References: <e7301d2e6aef776277cd6d81be0424a8 AT kylheku DOT com>
 <20240103082556 DOT 8ba92d98e1023f6e6fb175e2 AT nifty DOT ne DOT jp>
 <5d6e0d9bbeef1d4184b6067845d1e5a5 AT kylheku DOT com>
 <20240103091124 DOT 7b4b9e2f7a896c0c2fe416ab AT nifty DOT ne DOT jp>
 <382d26d43e66b45eca9facdd8bb9063d AT kylheku DOT com>
X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.7.0 (GTK+ 2.24.30; i686-pc-mingw32)
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, KAM_DMARC_STATUS,
 NICE_REPLY_A, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_PASS, TXREP,
 T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on
 server2.sourceware.org
X-BeenThere: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.30
Precedence: list
List-Id: General Cygwin discussions and problem reports <cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://cygwin.com/mailman/options/cygwin>,
 <mailto:cygwin-request AT cygwin DOT com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://cygwin.com/pipermail/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-request AT cygwin DOT com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://cygwin.com/mailman/listinfo/cygwin>,
 <mailto:cygwin-request AT cygwin DOT com?subject=subscribe>
From: Takashi Yano via Cygwin <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
Reply-To: Takashi Yano <takashi DOT yano AT nifty DOT ne DOT jp>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: cygwin-bounces+archive-cygwin=delorie DOT com AT cygwin DOT com
Sender: "Cygwin" <cygwin-bounces+archive-cygwin=delorie DOT com AT cygwin DOT com>

On Tue, 02 Jan 2024 19:59:57 -0800
Kaz Kylheku <kaz AT kylheku DOT com> wrote:
> On 2024-01-02 16:11, Takashi Yano via Cygwin wrote:
> > Perhaps, the off-by-one is for EOF as you guess.
> 
> I doubt it. If EOF were out of range of char, it would have to be -129 or less,
> so that -127 would look even more wrong.
> 
> I see EOF is just -1. That value will also be produced by '\xFF', or "\xff"[0], etc.

In systems other than cygwin, ALLOW_NEGATIVE_CTYPE_INDEX might not
be set. In that case, 

 124 const char _ctype_[1 + 256] = {
 125         0,
 126         _CTYPE_DATA_0_127,
 127         _CTYPE_DATA_128_255
 128 };

is used for __CTYPE_PTR.

So, isalpha(EOF) reffers to 0 in line 125 via this trick.

  45 int
  46 isalpha (int c)
  47 {
  48         return(__CTYPE_PTR[c+1] & (_U|_L));
  49 }

In cygwin, both isalpha((char*)0xff) and isalpha(EOF) reffers to
_CTYPE_DATA_128_255[127] in line 89, while isalpha((unsigned char*)0xff)
reffers to _CTYPE_DATA_128_255[127] in line 91. 

  88 char _ctype_b[128 + 256] = {
  89         _CTYPE_DATA_128_255,
  90         _CTYPE_DATA_0_127,
  91         _CTYPE_DATA_128_255
  92 };

-- 
Takashi Yano <takashi DOT yano AT nifty DOT ne DOT jp>

-- 
Problem reports:      https://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                  https://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:        https://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:     https://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple