Re: STDCXX tests fails and reasons [MSVC]

[Martin Sebor]

Farid Zaripov wrote:

-----Original Message-----

From: Martin Sebor [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2007 9:30 PM

To: stdcxx-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: STDCXX tests fails and reasons [MSVC]

The problem is in that rw_match() used to compare single

characters.

There no problem in compare one character NUL-terminated

string (i.e.

"b" or "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"). We should not use rw_match() to compare single characters.

I think something like rw_match("b", "[EMAIL PROTECTED]") should work, just as long as we do the special processing on just one of the two arguments (the second one in this case) and not both.

rw_match("b", "[EMAIL PROTECTED]") should work, but

  char c = 'b'; rw_match (&c, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]", 1);
or
  char c = 'b'; rw_match ("[EMAIL PROTECTED]", &c, 1);
or
  char c1 = 'b', c2 = 'b'; rw_match (&c1, &c2, 1);

shouldn't (may cause undefined behavior i.e. when the memory byte right
after c or c1 or c2 contain '@').

What I was trying to say was that rw_match (&c, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]", 1)
will work even when (&c + 1) is an invalid address after
we've changed the function to treat the first argument as
an ordinary string without interpreting any [EMAIL PROTECTED] sequences.
That's the problem, isn't it? That the function reads past
&c to see if there's an '@'?

Martin