changes to compare_string_array and setterm again
Tito
farmatito at tiscali.it
Mon Sep 4 19:49:15 UTC 2006
On Monday 4 September 2006 15:51, Alastor Santamaria wrote:
> hi, here in fsck.c line 1006:
>
> ------------------------------
> /* Are we ignoring this type? */
> if(compare_string_array(ignored_types, fs->type) >= 0)
> return 1;
>
> /* Do we really really want to check this fs? */
> wanted = compare_string_array(really_wanted, fs->type) >= 0;
>
> ***
> if (wanted)
>
> ------------------------------
>
> could be
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> if(!compare_string_array(ignored_types, fs->type))
> return 1;
>
> /* Do we really really want to check this fs? */
> wanted = compare_string_array(really_wanted, fs->type);
>
> ------------------------------
>
> everybody else just use a switch or
> if ((returned == 0) || (returned == 2))
> do_stuff;
>
> the function can be renamed compare_string_pascal_array
> or the like, to not confuse anybody
Hi, i think its best you forget about compare_string_array ;-)
It is designed to match this easy concept and to work as
most people expects:
static const char *const options[] = {
"Pippo", Pluto", "Topolino", 0
};
printf("%s\n", (compare_string_array(options, "Minnie") < 0) ? "Unknown": options[compare_string_array(options, "Minnie")]);
Maybe this is a little hazardous, untested but gives the idea.
> I'm sending setterm again check it out what doyou think?
Maybe if you repost a complete patch it would be easier to
test it as coding blindly leads to errors.
Ciao,
Tito
> best regards Alastor
>
More information about the busybox
mailing list