Re: ctype bug

["Simon 'corecode' Schubert" <corecode@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 07.07.2005, at 02:09, Matthew Dillon wrote:
> :Matt, the ctype macros ALWAYS worked like this, at the very least 
> back to
> :the days of 4.4BSD. THIS IS NOT NEW. Just because some programmers 
> don't like
> :reading the documentation and follow what is clearly written there, 
> doesn't mean
> :that arbitrary changes are correct.
>     No, they never worked like this.  Go back and look at rev 1.1 of
>     ctype.h in the FreeBSD source repository.  Guess what it does?  It
>     does a range check.

hm. looking at glibc and solaris, they don't do checks.
looking at openbsd, they do it this way:

__inline int isprint(int c)
{
	return (c == -1 ? 0 : ((_ctype_ + 1)[(unsigned char)c) & ....)));
}

what I don't understand is why they even have the -1 in their table 
then...

now I'm split. first I was for bounds checking, but looking at other 
major systems I have to admit that I tend to not check it either. Best 
with a segfault for negative indices < -1 :) whatever. bedtime now.

cheers
  simon

--
Serve - BSD     +++  RENT this banner advert  +++    ASCII Ribbon   /"\
Work - Mac      +++  space for low $$$ NOW!1  +++      Campaign     \ /
Party Enjoy Relax   |   http://dragonflybsd.org      Against  HTML   \
Dude 2c 2 the max   !   http://golden-apple.biz       Mail + News   / \

Attachment: PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part