Why __memrchr vs. memrchr ?

Why __memrchr vs. memrchr ?

[Denis Zaitsev]

Why such a scheme is used in GLIBC:

declare + define __memrchr, and than

# ifdef __USE_GNU
#  define memrchr(s, c, n) __memrchr ((s), (c), (n))
# endif

?  memrchr is not the GNU extension, is it?

Thanks in advance.

Re: Why __memrchr vs. memrchr ?

[Dmitry V. Levin]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 395 bytes --]

Hi,

On Tue, Feb 03, 2004 at 02:37:21AM +0500, Denis Zaitsev wrote:
> Why such a scheme is used in GLIBC:
> 
> declare + define __memrchr, and than
> 
> # ifdef __USE_GNU
> #  define memrchr(s, c, n) __memrchr ((s), (c), (n))
> # endif
> 
> ?  memrchr is not the GNU extension, is it?

According to memchr(3),
"The memrchr() function is a GNU extension, available since glibc 2.1.91".


-- 
ldv

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: Why __memrchr vs. memrchr ?

[Denis Zaitsev]

On Tue, Feb 03, 2004 at 01:17:23AM +0300, Dmitry V. Levin wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Tue, Feb 03, 2004 at 02:37:21AM +0500, Denis Zaitsev wrote:
> > Why such a scheme is used in GLIBC:
> > 
> > declare + define __memrchr, and than
> > 
> > # ifdef __USE_GNU
> > #  define memrchr(s, c, n) __memrchr ((s), (c), (n))
> > # endif
> > 
> > ?  memrchr is not the GNU extension, is it?
> 
> According to memchr(3),
> "The memrchr() function is a GNU extension, available since glibc 2.1.91".

Oh, I'm sorry.  This fact is omited from the texinfo GLIBC
documentation...

Thanks.

Re: Why __memrchr vs. memrchr ?

[Andreas Jaeger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 979 bytes --]

Denis Zaitsev <zzz@anda.ru> writes:

> On Tue, Feb 03, 2004 at 01:17:23AM +0300, Dmitry V. Levin wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> On Tue, Feb 03, 2004 at 02:37:21AM +0500, Denis Zaitsev wrote:
>> > Why such a scheme is used in GLIBC:
>> > 
>> > declare + define __memrchr, and than
>> > 
>> > # ifdef __USE_GNU
>> > #  define memrchr(s, c, n) __memrchr ((s), (c), (n))
>> > # endif
>> > 
>> > ?  memrchr is not the GNU extension, is it?
>> 
>> According to memchr(3),
>> "The memrchr() function is a GNU extension, available since glibc 2.1.91".
>
> Oh, I'm sorry.  This fact is omited from the texinfo GLIBC
> documentation...

It's in the Library Summary:
`void * memrchr (const void *BLOCK, int C, size_t SIZE)'
     `string.h' (GNU):  *Note Search Functions::.


Andreas
-- 
 Andreas Jaeger, aj@suse.de, http://www.suse.de/~aj
  SuSE Linux AG, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
   GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F  FED1 389A 563C C272 A126

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 188 bytes --]

Re: Why __memrchr vs. memrchr ?

[Denis Zaitsev]

On Tue, Feb 03, 2004 at 07:03:40AM +0100, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
> Denis Zaitsev <zzz@anda.ru> writes:
> 
> > On Tue, Feb 03, 2004 at 01:17:23AM +0300, Dmitry V. Levin wrote:
> >> 
> >> According to memchr(3),
> >> "The memrchr() function is a GNU extension, available since glibc 2.1.91".
> >
> > Oh, I'm sorry.  This fact is omited from the texinfo GLIBC
> > documentation...
> 
> It's in the Library Summary:
> `void * memrchr (const void *BLOCK, int C, size_t SIZE)'
>      `string.h' (GNU):  *Note Search Functions::.

Indeed, it's shortly marked as (GNU) here and there.  But that's not
described in the texi manual.  So, below is the tiny patch.  Please,
apply it.


--- manual/string.texi.orig	2004-02-06 05:02:13.000000000 +0500
+++ manual/string.texi	2004-02-06 05:03:47.000000000 +0500
@@ -1625,6 +1625,8 @@ This function is a GNU extension.
 The function @code{memrchr} is like @code{memchr}, except that it searches
 backwards from the end of the block defined by @var{block} and @var{size}
 (instead of forwards from the front).
+
+This function is a GNU extension.
 @end deftypefun
 
 @comment string.h