> -----Original Message----- > From: Martin Sebor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, July 20, 2007 2:04 AM > To: stdcxx-dev@incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: STDCXX tests fails and reasons [MSVC] > > Farid Zaripov wrote: > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Martin Sebor [mailto:[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 '@'?
Usually when rw_match() used for comparing the single characters, used rw_match (&c1, &c2, 1) form: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/stdcxx/trunk/tests/strings/21.str ing.access.cpp?r1=552912&r2=552911&pathrev=552912 http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/stdcxx/trunk/tests/strings/21.str ing.copy.cpp?r1=552912&r2=552911&pathrev=552912 Farid.
