Why __memrchr vs. memrchr ?

[Andreas Jaeger]

Denis Zaitsev <zzz@anda.ru> writes:

> On Tue, Feb 03, 2004 at 01:17:23AM +0300, Dmitry V. Levin wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> On Tue, Feb 03, 2004 at 02:37:21AM +0500, Denis Zaitsev wrote:
>> > Why such a scheme is used in GLIBC:
>> > 
>> > declare + define __memrchr, and than
>> > 
>> > # ifdef __USE_GNU
>> > #  define memrchr(s, c, n) __memrchr ((s), (c), (n))
>> > # endif
>> > 
>> > ?  memrchr is not the GNU extension, is it?
>> 
>> According to memchr(3),
>> "The memrchr() function is a GNU extension, available since glibc 2.1.91".
>
> Oh, I'm sorry.  This fact is omited from the texinfo GLIBC
> documentation...

It's in the Library Summary:
`void * memrchr (const void *BLOCK, int C, size_t SIZE)'
     `string.h' (GNU):  *Note Search Functions::.


Andreas
-- 
 Andreas Jaeger, aj@suse.de, http://www.suse.de/~aj
  SuSE Linux AG, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
   GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F  FED1 389A 563C C272 A126
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 188 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://sourceware.org/pipermail/libc-alpha/attachments/20040203/0f74b391/attachment.sig>