> 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
> What's wrong with strncmp?
strncmp(arg, str, sizeof(str)-1) looks ugly.
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
> 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 t
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,
