Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] string-list: make string_list_sort() reentrant

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Jan 24, 2017, 20:41 UTC
Message-ID: <20170124204105.2iqmincozuqbmqo2@sigill.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <b333ecd4-a147-904d-b1ce-b49179c4ad26@web.de>

On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 07:00:07PM +0100, René Scharfe wrote:

Show 8 quoted lines

> Am 24.01.2017 um 00:54 schrieb Jeff King:
> > The speed looks like a reasonable outcome. I'm torn on the qsort_r()
> > demo patch. I don't think it looks too bad. OTOH, I don't think I would
> > want to deal with the opposite-argument-order versions.
> 
> The code itself may look OK, but it's not really necessary and the special
> implementation for Linux makes increases maintenance costs.  Can we save it
> for later and first give the common implemention a chance to prove itself?

Sure, I'm OK with leaving it out for now.

Show 8 quoted lines

> > Is there any interest in people adding the ISO qsort_s() to their libc
> > implementations? It seems like it's been a fair number of years by now.
> 
> https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2014-12/msg00513.html is the last post
> mentioning qsort_s on the glibc mailing list, but it didn't even make it
> into https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/Development_Todo/Master.
> Not sure what's planned in BSD land, didn't find anything (but didn't look
> too hard).

So it sounds like "no, not really". I think that's OK. I was mostly curious if we could expect our custom implementation to age out over time.

-Peff