Re: How to implement qsort_r

[Yaakov Selkowitz <yselkowi at redhat dot com>]

On 2014-12-04 09:37, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 12/04/2014 01:28 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > The implementation is pretty simple either way, so, yes, we could
> > implement both and let the header provide both as well along the lines
> > of strerror_r.
> >
> > Alternatively, are there any known efforts to standarize the API?
> > Eric, any word from the Austin group in terms of qsort_r?
>
> No one has asked about it before; I can ask, but suspect that since
> there is a difference in existing implementation, it would be easier for
> POSIX to standardize a different function name than qsort_r than to pick
> sides on which signature to standardize.

Agreed.

> My personal preference is the glibc style (the opaque argument last in
> both qsort_r and the comparator), not the BSD style (the opaque argument
> first in both calls),  This is because POSIX already has other
> standardized functions in the glibc style (pthread_cleanup_push,
> pthread_create), and none in the BSD styloe.

Generally I would agree, but wouldn't it make more sense to group 
together the arguments to compar, IOW:

void qsort_r(void *base, size_t nmemb, size_t size, void *arg, int 
(*compar)(const void *, const void *, void *));

--
Yaakov Selkowitz
Associate Software Engineer, ARM
Red Hat, Inc.