On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 14:10, Dirk Hohndel wrote:
> +/* the semantic here actually puzzles me:
> + ? how can haystack be const char * - yet the return value is char *
> + ? after all, it points to a sub-string of haystack... */
Dunno if this is a question from the original source, but the
On 4/13/10 6:10 AM, Dirk Hohndel wrote:
>
> While all systems that I have access to support strcasestr, it is
> in fact not part of POSIX. So here's a fallback reimplementation
> based on POSIX functions.
Your patch is missing the part where it adds -DHAVE_STRCASESTR=.. to
CONFIGURE_C{XX,}FLAGS.
On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 15:59:24 +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 14:10, Dirk Hohndel wrote:
> > +/* the semantic here actually puzzles me:
> > + ? how can haystack be const char * - yet the return value is char *
> > + ? after all, it points to a sub-string of haystack... */
>
On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 15:59:24 +1000, Anthony Towns a...@erisian.com.au wrote:
On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 14:10, Dirk Hohndel hohn...@infradead.org wrote:
+/* the semantic here actually puzzles me:
+ how can haystack be const char * - yet the return value is char *
+ after all, it points to
While all systems that I have access to support strcasestr, it is
in fact not part of POSIX. So here's a fallback reimplementation
based on POSIX functions.
Signed-off-by: Dirk Hohndel
---
compat/Makefile.local|4
compat/have_strcasestr.c | 10 ++
compat/strcasestr.c
While all systems that I have access to support strcasestr, it is
in fact not part of POSIX. So here's a fallback reimplementation
based on POSIX functions.
Signed-off-by: Dirk Hohndel hohn...@infradead.org
---
compat/Makefile.local|4
compat/have_strcasestr.c | 10 ++
On 4/13/10 6:10 AM, Dirk Hohndel wrote:
While all systems that I have access to support strcasestr, it is
in fact not part of POSIX. So here's a fallback reimplementation
based on POSIX functions.
Your patch is missing the part where it adds -DHAVE_STRCASESTR=.. to
CONFIGURE_C{XX,}FLAGS.
On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 14:10, Dirk Hohndel hohn...@infradead.org wrote:
+/* the semantic here actually puzzles me:
+ how can haystack be const char * - yet the return value is char *
+ after all, it points to a sub-string of haystack... */
Dunno if this is a question from the original
