> On Jul 19, 2018, at 2:24 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 02:06:16PM -0500, Qing Zhao wrote:
>>> If you expand it as (int) ((unsigned char *)p)[n] - (int) ((unsigned char
>>> *)q)[n]
>>> then aren't you relying on int type to have wider precision than unsigned
>>> char
On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 02:06:16PM -0500, Qing Zhao wrote:
> > If you expand it as (int) ((unsigned char *)p)[n] - (int) ((unsigned char
> > *)q)[n]
> > then aren't you relying on int type to have wider precision than unsigned
> > char
> > (or unit_mode being narrower than mode)?
>
> do you
Jakub,
thanks a lot for you review and comments.
> On Jul 19, 2018, at 12:31 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 11:49:16AM -0500, Qing Zhao wrote:
>> As Wilco mentioned in PR78809 after I checked in the last part of
>> implementation of inline strcmp:
>>
>> See
On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 11:49:16AM -0500, Qing Zhao wrote:
> As Wilco mentioned in PR78809 after I checked in the last part of
> implementation of inline strcmp:
>
> See http://www.iso-9899.info/n1570.html
> section 7.24.4:
>
> "The sign of a nonzero value returned by the comparison functions
Hi,
As Wilco mentioned in PR78809 after I checked in the last part of
implementation of inline strcmp:
See http://www.iso-9899.info/n1570.html
section 7.24.4:
"The sign of a nonzero value returned by the comparison functions memcmp,
strcmp, and strncmp is determined
by the sign of the
