Re: How to implement qsort_r

[Corinna Vinschen <vinschen at redhat dot com>]

On Dec  4 07:37, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 12/04/2014 01:28 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > The implementation is pretty simple either way, so, yes, we could
> > implement both and let the header provide both as well along the lines
> > of strerror_r.
> > 
> > Alternatively, are there any known efforts to standarize the API?
> > Eric, any word from the Austin group in terms of qsort_r?
> 
> No one has asked about it before; I can ask, but suspect that since
> there is a difference in existing implementation, it would be easier for
> POSIX to standardize a different function name than qsort_r than to pick
> sides on which signature to standardize.
> 
> My personal preference is the glibc style (the opaque argument last in
> both qsort_r and the comparator), not the BSD style (the opaque argument
> first in both calls),  This is because POSIX already has other
> standardized functions in the glibc style (pthread_cleanup_push,
> pthread_create), and none in the BSD styloe.

Good point.  It's easier to implement, too, with qsort simply being a
shim to qsort_r with a NULL opaque argument.  The qsort comparison
function won't even notice the extra argument.


Thanks,
Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen
Cygwin Maintainer
Red Hat

Attachment: pgphhfLpgxsee.pgp
Description: PGP signature