On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 04:35:46PM -0500, Ted Unangst wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 17:48, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> >> > - for (t = toskeywords; t->keyword != NULL; t++) {
> >> > - if (strcmp(s, t->keyword) == 0) {
> >> > - *val = t->val;
> >> > - return (1);
> >> > - }
> >> > - }
> >> > + t = bsearch(s, toskeywords, nitems(toskeywords), sizeof(struct
> >> > toskeywords), (int (*)(const void *, const void *))strcmp);
> >>
> >> I don't like the way this is abusing types. In fact, I don't think this
> >> even works. Did you test it? A pointer to a struct toskeyword will not
> >> have the same value as the keyword member.
> >
> > The first field of a struct has the same address as the the struct
> > itself. Still I consider this bad form and overkill.
>
> This is true, but strcmp expects the value of t->keyword, not its
> address. Have I read the code wrong?
Right, it is wrong indeed. It could have been ok if keyward was an array.
-Otto
