On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 12:46:52PM +0100, Matthieu Herrb wrote: > On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 12:27:30PM +0100, Dirk Wallenstein 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. > > There are valid input files which include the 0xff character in > comments (the symbols/pc/fr file of the old xkb-data package). > > whith the current signed implementation there's no way to make the > difference with EOF.
Oh, okay. > > I agree with Julien that reverting > 9887842e33174a6e98675b912e419c711dd20c0f (and > 41b0857c8c1179b87a26888588cbfff28f8bb0d6 and > 61b3d4b024d8146cb0e7659aa958045ceb72c482 > done afterwards to fix the initial commit) is probably better. > > -- > Matthieu Herrb -- Greetings, Dirk _______________________________________________ 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
