[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Human readable sort
From: |
Eric Blake |
Subject: |
Re: Human readable sort |
Date: |
Thu, 21 May 2009 14:24:07 +0000 (UTC) |
User-agent: |
Loom/3.14 (http://gmane.org/) |
Pádraig Brady <P <at> draigBrady.com> writes:
> Looks like your copyright assignment papers went through.
> Attached is the latest patch rebased against master
> and with a couple of extra whitespace fixups.
>
+static int
+find_unit_order (const char *number)
+{
+ static const char orders [UCHAR_LIM] = {
+ ['K']=1, ['M']=2, ['G']=3, ['T']=4, ['P']=5, ['E']=6, ['Z']=7, ['Y']=8,
+ ['k']=1,
+ };
This assumes more of C99 than we have previously required. Are we sure that
all compilers out there will support this syntax?
Also, your tests only cover 'sort -h'; what about covering 'sort -k1,1h'?
--
Eric Blake
- Re: Human readable sort, Pádraig Brady, 2009/05/21
- Re: Human readable sort,
Eric Blake <=
- Re: Human readable sort, Pádraig Brady, 2009/05/21
- Re: Human readable sort, Jim Meyering, 2009/05/22
- Re: Human readable sort, Pádraig Brady, 2009/05/22
- Re: Human readable sort, Jim Meyering, 2009/05/22
- Re: Human readable sort, Pádraig Brady, 2009/05/26
- Re: Human readable sort, Jim Meyering, 2009/05/27
- Re: Human readable sort, Matthew Woehlke, 2009/05/26
Re: Human readable sort, Giuseppe Scrivano, 2009/05/21