From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:44933)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <lersek@redhat.com>) id 1UJ0Or-0002NB-Bf
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 22 Mar 2013 07:44:49 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <lersek@redhat.com>) id 1UJ0On-0000L6-3b
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 22 Mar 2013 07:44:45 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:53133)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <lersek@redhat.com>) id 1UJ0Om-0000Ky-SF
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 22 Mar 2013 07:44:41 -0400
Message-ID: <514C44A7.9020804@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 12:46:47 +0100
From: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1363283360-26220-1-git-send-email-armbru@redhat.com>
	<1363283360-26220-2-git-send-email-armbru@redhat.com>
	<514B616D.3020604@redhat.com>
	<87ppyryeim.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org>
In-Reply-To: <87ppyryeim.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 1/4] unicode: New mod_utf8_codepoint()
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>
Cc: blauwirbel@gmail.com, aliguori@us.ibm.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On 03/22/13 10:23, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com> writes:
>> On 03/14/13 18:49, Markus Armbruster wrote:

>>> +{
>>> +    static int min_cp[5] = { 0x80, 0x800, 0x10000, 0x200000, 0x4000000 };
>>> +    const unsigned char *p;
>>> +    unsigned byte, mask, len, i;
>>> +    int cp;
>>> +
>>> +    if (n == 0) {
>>> +        *end = (char *)s;
>>> +        return 0;
>>> +    }
>>
>> This is a special case (we return the code point U+0000 after looking at
>> zero bytes); we can probably expect the caller to know about n==0.
> 
> We could make it an error instead.  What's your gut feeling?

(If the question still stands -- maybe it doesn't any more, considering
future handling of '\0':) I guess this function would be called in a
loop, with increasing "s" and decreasing "n" values. "end" can only be
checked after the first call. If you write a loop that checks "end" in
the controlling expression, then accepting n==0 without error is useful.
If you write a loop that checks "n" in the controlling expression, then
refusing n==0 is OK. I'd probably write the latter kind of loop (I like
pre-testing more), but I can't say in general :)

Laszlo