On Wed, 13 Mar 2019 11:51:09 -0700 Nick Desaulniers ndesaulniers@google.com wrote:
This is confusing where the comment says "like memcmp but .." and then just returns memcmp() unmodified. If anything, I would expect to see
return !!memcmp(cs, ct, conut);That's more work than strictly needed. memcmp already provides the semantics of bcmp. memcmp just provides more meaning to the signedness of the return code, whereas bcmp does not.
I figured you would say as much ;-)
or have a better comment explaining why its the same.
I could add something about "the signedness of the return code not providing any meaning." What would you like to see in such a comment?
I think it's the wording that bothers me:
+ * bcmp - Like memcmp but a non-zero return code simply indicates a non-match.
What about:
* bcmp - Like memcmp but non-zero only means a non-match
Then in the description say that bcmp() callers must not expect anything more than zero and non-zero, as different implementations only need to return non-zero for non matches. The non-zero has no other meaning like it does in memcmp(). You could add that memcmp() itself is one implementation of bcmp() but not vice versa.
-- Steve