From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264493AbTLaNo3 (ORCPT ); Wed, 31 Dec 2003 08:44:29 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264494AbTLaNo3 (ORCPT ); Wed, 31 Dec 2003 08:44:29 -0500 Received: from parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk ([195.92.249.252]:52694 "EHLO www.linux.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264493AbTLaNo2 (ORCPT ); Wed, 31 Dec 2003 08:44:28 -0500 Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 13:44:27 +0000 From: viro@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk To: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu Cc: Linus Torvalds , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: hmm.. Message-ID: <20031231134427.GO4176@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> References: <3FE74FD3.8040807@antitux.net> <200312250756.hBP7ubq8014587@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200312250756.hBP7ubq8014587@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Dec 25, 2003 at 02:56:37AM -0500, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote: > work-around because IBM refused to fix it on the grounds that the VALC macro > was to protect against a SEGV if the macro was fed an 'int' rather than a > 'char' (why they didn't just use 'mask[__c & 255]' is beyond me), and that you Err... a) is...() must be able to deal with any value that fits into unsigned char and with EOF. Behaviour on anything else is undefined, so their argument is obviously bogus. b) mask[__c & 255] is _not_ a solution, simply because EOF and 255 might have different properties. Doesn't apply to kernel, but our is...() do not bother with EOF at all. Userland ones have to.