On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 4:27 PM, Dirk Wallenstein <hals...@t-online.de> wrote: > On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 01:26:10AM +0500, Alexandr Shadchin wrote: >> If type readBuf is char, then scanchar() return -1 for char(0xFF) and EOF. >> If type readBuf is unsigned char, then scanchar() return 0xFF for char(0xFF) >> and -1 for EOF. > > NAK: I assume you want to correct the case when returning EOF stored > inside of readBuf? This would now return EOF as 0x00ff but EOF is a > negative value. All parts that access readBuf work with signed values. >
You are wrong. EOF(value -1) returned if readBufLen == 0. EOF not stored inside of readBuf (1 patch). >> Signed-off-by: Alexandr Shadchin <alexandr.shadc...@gmail.com> >> --- >> xkbscan.c | 2 +- >> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/xkbscan.c b/xkbscan.c >> index 6d3678e..2620a07 100644 >> --- a/xkbscan.c >> +++ b/xkbscan.c >> @@ -49,7 +49,7 @@ char scanBuf[1024]; >> static int scanStrLine = 0; >> >> #define BUFSIZE 4096 >> -static char readBuf[BUFSIZE]; >> +static unsigned char readBuf[BUFSIZE]; >> static int readBufPos = 0; >> static int readBufLen = 0; >> >> -- >> 1.7.3.5 >> > > -- > Greetings, > Dirk > -- Alexandr Shadchin _______________________________________________ xorg-devel@lists.x.org: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
