From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "H. Peter Anvin" Subject: Re: Usage of isspace and friends Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 08:45:27 -0700 Message-ID: <434E8117.3090102@zytor.com> References: <118833cc0510111840k715e1190l54ad65f821c77848@mail.gmail.com> <7vachd6hdx.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Junio C Hamano , Morten Welinder , git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Oct 13 17:56:15 2005 Return-path: Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EQ5Hm-0008Pt-06 for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Thu, 13 Oct 2005 17:46:26 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751343AbVJMPp7 (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Oct 2005 11:45:59 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751401AbVJMPp7 (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Oct 2005 11:45:59 -0400 Received: from terminus.zytor.com ([192.83.249.54]:20426 "EHLO terminus.zytor.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751343AbVJMPp6 (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Oct 2005 11:45:58 -0400 Received: from [10.4.1.13] (yardgnome.orionmulti.com [209.128.68.65]) (authenticated bits=0) by terminus.zytor.com (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j9DFjVLF021757 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 13 Oct 2005 08:45:32 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7-1.1.fc4 (X11/20050929) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en To: Linus Torvalds In-Reply-To: X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV version 0.87, clamav-milter version 0.87 on localhost X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.0.4 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.4 (2005-06-05) on terminus.zytor.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Linus Torvalds wrote: > > So Morten is right - if you have a "char *", it should not be dereferenced > and used directly, although I think glibc does the right thing (and, in > fact, I can't understand why the standards haven't been updated to do the > right thing: it's _not_ that hard. In fact, it should be trivial apart > from the special case of "255" that looks undistinguishable from EOF in > signed char representation). > Because of the special case of 255 which looks indistinguishable from EOF, therefore making it required? The original mistake, of course, was allowing EOF to be passed to the various isxxx() macros. -hpa