Hi, sorry, but your patch is a bit ugly... please look at the code below /* determine if tihs switch is followed by a separate argument */ in winegcc.c and understand what it does. specially with next_is_arg, is_linker_arg, .... Also the following is senseless: +int strstartswith(const char * str, const char * start) +{ + return strstr(str, start) == str; +}
Hi, sorry, but your patch is a bit ugly... please look at the code below /* determine if tihs switch is followed by a separate argument */ in winegcc.c and understand what it does. specially with next_is_arg, is_linker_arg, ....
I could set option_arg for semantic correctness.
Also the following is senseless: +int strstartswith(const char * str, const char * start) +{
- return strstr(str, start) == str;
+}
Are you objecting to function or the implementation? It is a simple function that clarifies the code by making it self documenting, implemented fairly efficiently in a performance wise undemanding program.
Peter
Are you objecting to function or the implementation? It is a simple function that clarifies the code by making it self documenting, implemented fairly efficiently in a performance wise undemanding program.
What's wrong with strncmp? --Juan
strncmp(arg, str, sizeof(str)-1) looks ugly.
Am I expected to accept that as an axiom? IMO, your strstr wrapper is much uglier, in addition to being needlessly complex. --Juan
-
André Hentschel -
Juan Lang -
Peter Davies