From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.3 required=5.0 tests=MAILING_LIST_MULTI,
	RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Received: (qmail 26442 invoked from network); 13 Jul 2021 17:40:18 -0000
Received: from mother.openwall.net (195.42.179.200)
  by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 13 Jul 2021 17:40:18 -0000
Received: (qmail 12221 invoked by uid 550); 13 Jul 2021 17:40:16 -0000
Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:musl@lists.openwall.com>
List-Help: <mailto:musl-help@lists.openwall.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:musl-unsubscribe@lists.openwall.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:musl-subscribe@lists.openwall.com>
List-ID: <musl.lists.openwall.com>
Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com
Received: (qmail 12202 invoked from network); 13 Jul 2021 17:40:15 -0000
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2021 13:40:03 -0400
From: Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org>
To: musl@lists.openwall.com
Message-ID: <20210713174002.GB13220@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
References: <0F84CB3415BB437FBD48B8B81795064E@H270>
 <20210713154547.GA13220@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
 <93626619AB0D496E90CFA1DDAF9915FE@H270>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <93626619AB0D496E90CFA1DDAF9915FE@H270>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Subject: Re: [musl] Changes for strcspn(), strspn(), strtok() and strtok_r()

On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 06:31:12PM +0200, Stefan Kanthak wrote:
> Rich Felker wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 02:02:06PM +0200, Stefan Kanthak wrote:
> 
> >>  #include <string.h>
> >>  
> >>  char *strtok_r(char *restrict s, const char *restrict sep, char **restrict p)
> >>  {
> >>          if (!s && !(s = *p)) return NULL;
> >>          s += strspn(s, sep);
> >> -        if (!*s) return *p = 0;
> >> +        if (!*s) return *p = NULL;
> >>          *p = s + strcspn(s, sep);
> >>          if (**p) *(*p)++ = 0;
> >> -        else *p = 0;
> >> +        else *p = NULL;
> >>          return s;
> >>  }
> > 
> > This is a gratuitous style change in the opposite direction of what's
> > preferred in musl.
> 
> Do you REALLY prefer using NULL and 0 in parallel for the null pointer?

No, just 0. I didn't see that NULL also appeared above too; most
places it appears are just leftovers from really old code.