On 17/02/2014 05:51, Mikael Vidstedt wrote:
I completely agree that changing this code to use its own isspace is the right thing, it just seems a bit much for a drive-by fixed to gcc warnings. Do either of you want to take it?I'm inclined to agree with this. Since the code depends on a specific behavior of isspace which does not match what the system provided function does I too think it would be more robust to implement our own version of it.
-Alan
