Hi,
On 06/12/2019 16:06, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 06.12.2019 15:46, Julien Grall wrote:
On 05/12/2019 16:50, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 05.12.2019 17:27, Julien Grall wrote:
On 05/12/2019 15:33, Jan Beulich wrote:
+/*
+ * String comparison functions mostly matching strcmp() / strncmp(),
+ * except that they treat '-' and '_' as matching one another.
+ */
+static int _strcmp(const char *s1, const char *s2)
I thought we were trying to avoid new function name with leading _?
We're trying to avoid new name space violations. Such are
- identifiers starting with two underscores,
- identifiers starting with an underscore and an upper case letter,
- identifiers of non-static symbols starting with an underscore.
I am not sure to understand why non-static symbols only. This would
prevent you to use the the non-static symbol if you happen to re-use the
same name.
I'm afraid I don't understand. Anyway - what I've listed above is
what the language standard mandates.
AFAIU, for a given unit, there is only one pool of identifiers. So you
could not have an identifier used at the same time by a non-static and a
static symbol (that's exclusing the weak attribute). So it feels
slightly strange to only cover the non-static symbols.
Anyway, how about calling it cmdline_strncmp()? This would be easier to
spot misuse on review (i.e using strncmp() rather than _strncmp()).
We already have cmdline_strcmp(), or else I would indeed have used
this prefix. No prefix (other than the lone underscore) seemed the
next best option.
As we parse an option, how about opt_strncmp()?
Cheers,
--
Julien Grall
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
