On 05/16/2012 08:44 AM, David C. Rankin wrote:
On 05/16/2012 06:25 AM, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
Here's a diff for the manual, I'm getting this fixed in glibc,
Andreas
diff --git a/manual/string.texi b/manual/string.texi index 5051f54..7abf46b 100644 --- a/manual/string.texi +++ b/manual/string.texi @@ -1370,8 +1370,11 @@ efficiently using @code{strxfrm}.) /* @r{This is the comparison function used with @code{qsort}.} */
int -compare_elements (char **p1, char **p2) +compare_elements (const void *v1, const void *v2) @{ + char **p1 = (char **)v1; + char **p2 = (char **)v2; + return strcoll (*p1, *p2); @}
@@ -1462,8 +1465,11 @@ struct sorter @{ char *input; char *transformed; @}; @r{to sort an array of @code{struct sorter}.} */
int -compare_elements (struct sorter *p1, struct sorter *p2) +compare_elements (const void *v1, const void *v2) @{ + struct sorter *p1 = (struct sorter *)v1; + struct sorter *p2 = (struct sorter *)v2; + return strcmp (p1->transformed, p2->transformed); @}
Both compiles great. Thanks Andreas. Looks like the 2.16 manual will be a good update to the manual that probably hasn't had a good going over in quite some time. Thanks for all you efforts there.
Andreas, From the other thread concerning using char foo[] instead of char *foo, couldn't the sort_strings_fast prototype (section 5.6) be improved by doing: sort_strings_fast (char *array[], int nstrings); instead of the current sort_strings_fast (char **array, int nstrings); Wouldn't that give of the same benefit of having an array of pointers to strings instead of an array of pointer variables? It may not make any difference here, but I thought I would pass it along anyway. -- David C. Rankin, J.D.,P.E. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org