Re: [PATCH] strtok -> strsep (The Easy Cases)

2001-05-04 Thread Ren=E9=20Scharfe
Rusty Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb am 04.05.01: > In message <01050413055100.00907@golmepha> you write: > > Am Freitag, 4. Mai 2001 02:57 schrieb Rusty Russell: > > > There are two cases where the substitution is problematic: > > > > Yes, but... > > > > The cases which my patch modifies

Re: [PATCH] strtok -> strsep (The Easy Cases)

2001-05-04 Thread Rusty Russell
In message <01050413055100.00907@golmepha> you write: > Am Freitag, 4. Mai 2001 02:57 schrieb Rusty Russell: > > There are two cases where the substitution is problematic: > > Yes, but... > > The cases which my patch modifies are of a different kind: The very first hunk of your patch is wrong.

Re: [PATCH] strtok -> strsep (The Easy Cases)

2001-05-04 Thread Rene Scharfe
Am Freitag, 4. Mai 2001 02:57 schrieb Rusty Russell: > In message <01050120580701.01713@golmepha> you write: > > Hello, Hi! > > > > the patch at the bottom does the bulk job of strtok replacement. It's a > > very boring patch, containing easy cases, only. It became a bit big, too, > > but I tru

Re: [PATCH] strtok -> strsep (The Easy Cases)

2001-05-03 Thread Rusty Russell
In message <01050120580701.01713@golmepha> you write: > Hello, > > the patch at the bottom does the bulk job of strtok replacement. It's a > very boring patch, containing easy cases, only. It became a bit big, too, > but I trust you can digest it nevertheless. It's made against kernel > version 2

[PATCH] strtok -> strsep (The Easy Cases)

2001-05-01 Thread Rene Scharfe
Hello, the patch at the bottom does the bulk job of strtok replacement. It's a very boring patch, containing easy cases, only. It became a bit big, too, but I trust you can digest it nevertheless. It's made against kernel version 2.4.4. What is the benefit of getting rid of strtok? It is for cut