On Thu, Sep 18, 2025 at 04:13:20PM +0200, Bruno Haible wrote: > Hi Alejandro,
Hi Bruno, > > I still see some uses of strcmp(3) within gnulib. Is there a reason for > > them? Should we replace them too? [...] > These are not strcmp, but other functions. [...] > These are merely comments. [...] > These are uses of strcmp which are not compared for == 0 or != 0. > > > lib/gen-uni-tables.c:73: return !strcmp (s1, s2); > > This is source code that is not compiled with other gnulib modules. [...] > This is source code that is shared with glibc. [...] > This source code is part of 'relocatable-prog-wrapper', which > better avoids too many Gnulib module dependencies. > > > lib/string.in.h:812: return !strcmp (__s1, __s2); > > lib/setenv.c:446:# define STREQ(a, b) (strcmp (a, b) == 0) > > lib/streq.h:177: (strcmp (s1, s2) == 0) > > lib/dfa.c:54:# define streq(a, b) (strcmp (a, b) == 0) > > These are definitions of streq or STREQ or STREQ_OPT. We could replace the definition in dfa.c, can't we? > > > lib/exclude.c:333: : strcmp (pattern, f)); > > streq could be used here, but it's a judgement call. This one would be interesting. When I read that one I wasn't sure if the integer value was important, or if it was only important as a boolean. I think using streq() there would be an improvement. Thanks! Cheers, Alex -- <https://www.alejandro-colomar.es/>
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
