Subject: RE: ANSI standards
From: James Montgomerie (jamie@montgomerie.net)
Date: Sun Jan 23 2000 - 17:12:44 CST
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-abiword-dev@abisource.com
> [mailto:owner-abiword-dev@abisource.com]On Behalf Of
> sterwill@abisource.com
> Sent: 20 January 2000 20:48
> Subject: Re: ANSI standards
>
> The implementation of these UT functions should aim at correctness first
> and speed second; these string functions are called a LOT in a word
> processor. If we can find a way to #define these implementations to
> standard C library implementations (instead of calling them from our
> own functions), we'll gain on speed.
Does anyone know the reason we're implemening strcmp(...) as an intermediate
function, UT_strcmp(...), and putting the code in the platform-specific cpp
files (strcmp(...) /is/ ANSI)?
I'm planning to take out the platform-specific versions and simply #define
UT_strcmp(x, y) to strcmp(x, y) if no-one can think of a reason why I
shouldn't.
Jamie
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Sun Jan 23 2000 - 17:09:45 CST