«

Bill Cunningham wrote:

> Yes I forgot the []. Ok I will rewrite.

Now this seems to work.

#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>

int comp(const void *a, const void *b)
{
int *pa = (int *) a;
int *pb = (int *) b;
return *pa - *pb;
}

void print_int_array(int *array, size_t len)
{
size_t i = 0;
for (; i < len; i++)
printf("%d | ", array[i]);
putchar('\n');
}

int main(void)
{
int num[] = { 3, 4, 1, 2, 5 };
size_t num_len = sizeof(num) / sizeof(int);
qsort(num, num_len, sizeof(int), comp);
print_int_array(num, num_len);
}

And it's perfectly indented just for you Barry.

Bill

On 10/18/12 12:25, Bill Cunningham wrote:
> Bill Cunningham wrote:
>
>> Yes I forgot the []. Ok I will rewrite.
>
> Now this seems to work.
>
> #include<stdio.h>
> #include<stdlib.h>
>
> int comp(const void *a, const void *b)
> {
> int *pa = (int *) a;
> int *pb = (int *) b;
> return *pa - *pb;
> }

Why do you keep those silly casts? Just write

const int *pa = a;
const int *pb = b;

--
Ian Collins

Ian Collins wrote:
> On 10/18/12 12:25, Bill Cunningham wrote:
>> Bill Cunningham wrote:
>>
>>> Yes I forgot the []. Ok I will rewrite.
>>
>> Now this seems to work.
>>
>> #include<stdio.h>
>> #include<stdlib.h>
>>
>> int comp(const void *a, const void *b)
>> {
>> int *pa = (int *) a;
>> int *pb = (int *) b;
>> return *pa - *pb;
>> }
>
> Why do you keep those silly casts? Just write
>
> const int *pa = a;
> const int *pb = b;

I'm more interested in why the dereferences. If I'm dereferencing pa and pb
then I must be using or change the object they're pointing to which must be
the generic void *a and void *b.

"Bill Cunningham" <> writes:
> I have these 3 functions and before I compile I am going to ask about
> them.
[...]

You're posting code that you haven't even tried to compile?

Please don't waste our time.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst- <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Will write code for food.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

On 10/18/12 13:41, Bill Cunningham wrote:
> Ian Collins wrote:
>> On 10/18/12 12:25, Bill Cunningham wrote:
>>> Bill Cunningham wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yes I forgot the []. Ok I will rewrite.
>>>
>>> Now this seems to work.
>>>
>>> #include<stdio.h>
>>> #include<stdlib.h>
>>>
>>> int comp(const void *a, const void *b)
>>> {
>>> int *pa = (int *) a;
>>> int *pb = (int *) b;
>>> return *pa - *pb;
>>> }
>>
>> Why do you keep those silly casts? Just write
>>
>> const int *pa = a;
>> const int *pb = b;
>
> I'm more interested in why the dereferences. If I'm dereferencing pa and pb
> then I must be using or change the object they're pointing to which must be
> the generic void *a and void *b.

The whole point of the parameters being const qualified is you can't
change values pointed to.

--
Ian Collins

Keith Thompson <kst-> writes:
> "Bill Cunningham" <> writes:
> > I have these 3 functions and before I compile I am going to ask about
> > them.
> [...]
>
> You're posting code that you haven't even tried to compile?
>
> Please don't waste our time.

Why didn't Bill hit everyone's killfiles half a decade ago?
Your advice is heading straight down /dev/null every time you
address his wibblings.

Phil
--
Regarding TSA regulations:
How are four small bottles of liquid different from one large bottle?
Because four bottles can hold the components of a binary liquid explosive,
whereas one big bottle can't. -- camperdave responding to MacAndrew on /.

Keith Thompson wrote:

> You're posting code that you haven't even tried to compile?
>
> Please don't waste our time.

Why do some people post untested code? I didn't know it was against the
rules. I've seen it alot. It's tested now and works perfectly.

Bill

Ian Collins wrote:

> The whole point of the parameters being const qualified is you can't
> change values pointed to.

Yes I understand. I am just expressing the opinion like those in the
*in* group that you can just not change it. I think it's a waste to the
standard personally. FWIW.

Bill

Ian Collins wrote:
> On 10/18/12 10:50, Bill Cunningham wrote:
>>
>> Like I said at the beginning of my post. This is untested code.
>
> Why post untested code? Test it, than ask for help.

I've often wondered why post untested code too that has been posted by
those in the *in* group. They do it I didn't know it was against the rules.
Atleast for some.

Bill

Ian Collins wrote:
> On 10/18/12 10:50, Bill Cunningham wrote:
>>
>> Like I said at the beginning of my post. This is untested code.
>
> Why post untested code? Test it, than ask for help.

Besides I thought untested code was enough in answering my questions. I
planned on testing it and have.

And let me ask you as a programmer Ian and being in the *in* group an
*outgroup*er question. What exactly do callback pointer functions help with.
I know this should come from the womb but just and honest question.

Bill