Stefan Beller <[email protected]> writes:
> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 3:12 PM, Stefan Beller <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Unless you count "I want to write differently from what was
>>> suggested" is a desirable thing to do, I do not see a point in
>>> favouring the above that uses an extra variable and skip_prefix()
>>> over what I gave you as "how about" patch. But whatever.
>>
>> The skip_prefix was there before, so it stuck there.
Sorry, but I thought this "parsing update strategy" was all new
code.
>> Also it seems a bit more high level to me hence easier to read,
>> (though I am biased). I'll use your suggestion.
>
> and it doesn't crash when passing in value == NULL.
> (We don't do that currently, just a side observation)
Hmph. If you pass str==NULL with prefix="!" to what we have below,
I would think the first iteration would try to read from *str and do
a bizarre thing.
static inline int skip_prefix(const char *str, const char *prefix,
const char **out)
{
do {
if (!*prefix) {
*out = str;
return 1;
}
} while (*str++ == *prefix++);
return 0;
}
Puzzled.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
