Re: tolower()/islower() and char

To: Martin Husemann <martin%duskware.de@localhost>
Subject: Re: tolower()/islower() and char
From: Manuel Bouyer <bouyer%antioche.eu.org@localhost>
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2021 12:28:57 +0100

On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 12:19:39PM +0100, Martin Husemann wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 12:14:28PM +0100, Manuel Bouyer wrote:
> > Any comment about this ? I'm not familiar with these details ...
> 
> man ctype and search for CAVEATS

thanks.
So NetBSD and glibc took different approach to try to avoid undefined
behavior. I am right saying that both are standard-compliant ?
Does the standard explicitely state that the value should either be
EOF or >= 0 ?

-- 
Manuel Bouyer <bouyer%antioche.eu.org@localhost>
     NetBSD: 26 ans d'experience feront toujours la difference
--

Follow-Ups:
- Re: tolower()/islower() and char
  - From: Joerg Sonnenberger
- Re: tolower()/islower() and char
  - From: Martin Husemann

References:
- tolower()/islower() and char
  - From: Manuel Bouyer
- Re: tolower()/islower() and char
  - From: Martin Husemann

Prev by Date: Re: tolower()/islower() and char
Next by Date: Re: tolower()/islower() and char
Previous by Thread: Re: tolower()/islower() and char
Next by Thread: Re: tolower()/islower() and char
Indexes:

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index