On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 01:23:26PM +0100, Daniel Mack wrote: > On 12/18/2013 01:15 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > > For instance, can you be sure that there aren't any uses of strncmp() > > which already test for less-than-zero etc? > > In this case, yes. The code as it stands is very small, and users only > check for the return value of these functions to be 0. > > But I wonder whether that patch is needed at all. At least the rest of > this series does not even seem to introduce new call sites of strcmp() > or strncmp() ... The implementation appears to be buggy as it stands - all it does is sum up the differences in the whole string. What if you're comparing two strings: ac ca The first character has a difference of +2, the second has a difference of -2. Sum those together and you get zero. Oh, the two strings are identical! Oh, and the other nitpick with the code is this: *(a++) Really, are those parens really needed? If you don't know the precendence there, then you really shouldn't be programming in C, because this might also be buggy: *(a++) - *(b++) because if we declare that we don't know the precedence rules, it could be that this is evaluated as *((a++) - (*(b++))) which would lead to errors! Maybe some more parens should be added to make it clear! Or maybe we should just learn the precedence rules and realise that: *a++ - *b++ is correct and clear and there's no need for any stupid idiotic parens here. Yes, I loath unnecessary parens. _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel