Compare a given version number in the form major.minor.build.patch and see if one is less than the other Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)Displaying the number of elements larger than the average of an arrayFirst prime number larger than given integerFind smallest prime number greater than given nPrinting twin primes less than a given natural number nFind how many numbers in an array are less than each number in the arraySimple pool of threads which calculate the sum of a given number from the main processCalculate the number of palindrome numbers in the given rangesA program to find out the number of odd and even Fibonacci numbers between given rangeFind the smallest number in the first array that is not in the second oneFind the sum of the digits of a given number
Apollo command module space walk?
3 doors, three guards, one stone
Should I discuss the type of campaign with my players?
Ring Automorphisms that fix 1.
Identifying polygons that intersect with another layer using QGIS?
What's the purpose of writing one's academic biography in the third person?
Can a USB port passively 'listen only'?
When were vectors invented?
How to react to hostile behavior from a senior developer?
Can I cast Passwall to drop an enemy into a 20-foot pit?
Is it ethical to give a final exam after the professor has quit before teaching the remaining chapters of the course?
Is the Standard Deduction better than Itemized when both are the same amount?
Why did the rest of the Eastern Bloc not invade Yugoslavia?
If a contract sometimes uses the wrong name, is it still valid?
How to deal with a team lead who never gives me credit?
What does the "x" in "x86" represent?
porting install scripts : can rpm replace apt?
How widely used is the term Treppenwitz? Is it something that most Germans know?
How discoverable are IPv6 addresses and AAAA names by potential attackers?
How do I stop a creek from eroding my steep embankment?
How does debian/ubuntu knows a package has a updated version
How to bypass password on Windows XP account?
Why are there no cargo aircraft with "flying wing" design?
Gordon Ramsay Pudding Recipe
Compare a given version number in the form major.minor.build.patch and see if one is less than the other
Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara
Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)Displaying the number of elements larger than the average of an arrayFirst prime number larger than given integerFind smallest prime number greater than given nPrinting twin primes less than a given natural number nFind how many numbers in an array are less than each number in the arraySimple pool of threads which calculate the sum of a given number from the main processCalculate the number of palindrome numbers in the given rangesA program to find out the number of odd and even Fibonacci numbers between given rangeFind the smallest number in the first array that is not in the second oneFind the sum of the digits of a given number
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;
$begingroup$
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <string.h>
#include <stdbool.h>
typedef int STATUS;
#define ERROR -1
#define OKAY 0
struct version
unsigned char major;
unsigned char minor;
unsigned char build;
unsigned char patch;
;
STATUS is_less_than(struct version * original, struct version *compared, bool *result)
compared == NULL
Is there a cleaner way to do this?
c
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <string.h>
#include <stdbool.h>
typedef int STATUS;
#define ERROR -1
#define OKAY 0
struct version
unsigned char major;
unsigned char minor;
unsigned char build;
unsigned char patch;
;
STATUS is_less_than(struct version * original, struct version *compared, bool *result)
compared == NULL
Is there a cleaner way to do this?
c
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <string.h>
#include <stdbool.h>
typedef int STATUS;
#define ERROR -1
#define OKAY 0
struct version
unsigned char major;
unsigned char minor;
unsigned char build;
unsigned char patch;
;
STATUS is_less_than(struct version * original, struct version *compared, bool *result)
compared == NULL
Is there a cleaner way to do this?
c
$endgroup$
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <string.h>
#include <stdbool.h>
typedef int STATUS;
#define ERROR -1
#define OKAY 0
struct version
unsigned char major;
unsigned char minor;
unsigned char build;
unsigned char patch;
;
STATUS is_less_than(struct version * original, struct version *compared, bool *result)
compared == NULL
Is there a cleaner way to do this?
c
c
asked 6 hours ago
the_endianthe_endian
406312
406312
add a comment |
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Yes, there is a cleaner way:
if (a.major != b.major)
*result = a.major < b.major;
else if (a.minor != b.minor)
*result = a.minor < b.minor;
else if (a.patch != b.patch)
*result = a.patch < b.patch;
else
*result = a.build < b.build;
return OKAY;
I reordered patch to come before build since that's how it is usually done. If your version scheme is different from this, good luck.
Instead of unsigned char
I would choose unsigned int so that your code can handle versions like 1.0.20190415
.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Nice catch on the patch, build ordering.
$endgroup$
– Costantino Grana
2 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I don't see any advantage to having the function to take three pointers (two for input and one for output) and return a status code. As a result of that unnecessarily error-prone design, the function has to handle the possibility of null pointers, and the caller is expected to handle a status code. But why should such a simple comparison have these failure modes at all?
The danger is further complicated by the fact that neither of the in-parameters is declared const
.
Just pass the two versions by value, and you would eliminate all of that complication! On any modern 32-bit or 64-bit processor, passing a four-byte struct by value should actually be more efficient than passing it by reference — especially since you don't have to dereference the pointers to access each field.
With all of the potential errors out of the way, taking @RolandIllig's suggestion, you could then reduce it down to one chained conditional expression:
bool is_less_than(struct version a, struct version b)
return a.major != b.major ? a.major < b.major :
a.minor != b.minor ? a.minor < b.minor :
a.patch != b.patch ? a.patch < b.patch :
a.build < b.build;
I'd go further and recommend using unsigned short
instead of unsigned char
for the fields. Using unsigned char
for numeric values is awkward, since you would have to cast them when using printf()
. On a 64-bit architecture, a struct with four 2-byte fields would occupy 64 bits, so you wouldn't be saving anything by using unsigned char
instead of unsigned short
.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Return status
You create this:
typedef int STATUS;
#define ERROR -1
#define OKAY 0
which is basically a boolean status. Personally, I'd return a straight bool
.
Bug/Not what you mean
Doing a
result = NULL;
is changing the local variable (parameter) result
. It's not setting the result to NULL. In fact the caller won't probably have a pointer at all, but just a bool
, which cannot properly be NULL.
Shorter version
I'm not sure this is cleaner, but here I go:
bool is_less_than(struct version * original, struct version *compared, bool *result)
Next time, add a driver/test suite to your question, to ease the life of people answering. This can be one:
int main(void)
struct version ref = 1, 2, 21, 8 ;
struct version lower1 = 0, 2, 21, 8 ;
struct version lower2 = 1, 1, 21, 8 ;
struct version lower3 = 1, 2, 20, 8 ;
struct version lower4 = 1, 2, 21, 7 ;
struct version equal = 1, 2, 21, 8 ;
struct version higher1 = 2, 2, 21, 8 ;
struct version higher2 = 1, 3, 21, 8 ;
struct version higher3 = 1, 2, 22, 8 ;
struct version higher4 = 1, 2, 21, 9 ;
#define TEST(a,b,expect1,expect2)
do
bool result1, result2;
is_less_than((a), (b), &result1);
is_less_than((b), (a), &result2);
puts(result1==(expect1) && result2==(expect2)?"ok":"failed");
while(0)
#define TESTL(a,b) TEST(a,b,true,false)
#define TESTE(a,b) TEST(a,b,false,false)
#define TESTH(a,b) TEST(a,b,false,true)
TESTL(&lower1, &ref);
TESTL(&lower2, &ref);
TESTL(&lower3, &ref);
TESTL(&lower4, &ref);
TESTE(&equal, &ref);
TESTH(&higher1, &ref);
TESTH(&higher2, &ref);
TESTH(&higher3, &ref);
TESTH(&higher4, &ref);
return 0;
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
As for every comparator function, the driver/test should compare each pair of example data to at least ensure that the ordering is transitive and thatless(x, x)
is never true.
$endgroup$
– Roland Illig
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
@RolandIllig Updated. Thank you for the suggestion.
$endgroup$
– Costantino Grana
2 hours ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function ()
StackExchange.using("snippets", function ()
StackExchange.snippets.init();
);
);
, "code-snippets");
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "196"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fcodereview.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f217587%2fcompare-a-given-version-number-in-the-form-major-minor-build-patch-and-see-if-on%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Yes, there is a cleaner way:
if (a.major != b.major)
*result = a.major < b.major;
else if (a.minor != b.minor)
*result = a.minor < b.minor;
else if (a.patch != b.patch)
*result = a.patch < b.patch;
else
*result = a.build < b.build;
return OKAY;
I reordered patch to come before build since that's how it is usually done. If your version scheme is different from this, good luck.
Instead of unsigned char
I would choose unsigned int so that your code can handle versions like 1.0.20190415
.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Nice catch on the patch, build ordering.
$endgroup$
– Costantino Grana
2 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Yes, there is a cleaner way:
if (a.major != b.major)
*result = a.major < b.major;
else if (a.minor != b.minor)
*result = a.minor < b.minor;
else if (a.patch != b.patch)
*result = a.patch < b.patch;
else
*result = a.build < b.build;
return OKAY;
I reordered patch to come before build since that's how it is usually done. If your version scheme is different from this, good luck.
Instead of unsigned char
I would choose unsigned int so that your code can handle versions like 1.0.20190415
.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Nice catch on the patch, build ordering.
$endgroup$
– Costantino Grana
2 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Yes, there is a cleaner way:
if (a.major != b.major)
*result = a.major < b.major;
else if (a.minor != b.minor)
*result = a.minor < b.minor;
else if (a.patch != b.patch)
*result = a.patch < b.patch;
else
*result = a.build < b.build;
return OKAY;
I reordered patch to come before build since that's how it is usually done. If your version scheme is different from this, good luck.
Instead of unsigned char
I would choose unsigned int so that your code can handle versions like 1.0.20190415
.
$endgroup$
Yes, there is a cleaner way:
if (a.major != b.major)
*result = a.major < b.major;
else if (a.minor != b.minor)
*result = a.minor < b.minor;
else if (a.patch != b.patch)
*result = a.patch < b.patch;
else
*result = a.build < b.build;
return OKAY;
I reordered patch to come before build since that's how it is usually done. If your version scheme is different from this, good luck.
Instead of unsigned char
I would choose unsigned int so that your code can handle versions like 1.0.20190415
.
edited 2 hours ago
answered 2 hours ago
Roland IlligRoland Illig
11.6k11946
11.6k11946
$begingroup$
Nice catch on the patch, build ordering.
$endgroup$
– Costantino Grana
2 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Nice catch on the patch, build ordering.
$endgroup$
– Costantino Grana
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
Nice catch on the patch, build ordering.
$endgroup$
– Costantino Grana
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
Nice catch on the patch, build ordering.
$endgroup$
– Costantino Grana
2 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I don't see any advantage to having the function to take three pointers (two for input and one for output) and return a status code. As a result of that unnecessarily error-prone design, the function has to handle the possibility of null pointers, and the caller is expected to handle a status code. But why should such a simple comparison have these failure modes at all?
The danger is further complicated by the fact that neither of the in-parameters is declared const
.
Just pass the two versions by value, and you would eliminate all of that complication! On any modern 32-bit or 64-bit processor, passing a four-byte struct by value should actually be more efficient than passing it by reference — especially since you don't have to dereference the pointers to access each field.
With all of the potential errors out of the way, taking @RolandIllig's suggestion, you could then reduce it down to one chained conditional expression:
bool is_less_than(struct version a, struct version b)
return a.major != b.major ? a.major < b.major :
a.minor != b.minor ? a.minor < b.minor :
a.patch != b.patch ? a.patch < b.patch :
a.build < b.build;
I'd go further and recommend using unsigned short
instead of unsigned char
for the fields. Using unsigned char
for numeric values is awkward, since you would have to cast them when using printf()
. On a 64-bit architecture, a struct with four 2-byte fields would occupy 64 bits, so you wouldn't be saving anything by using unsigned char
instead of unsigned short
.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I don't see any advantage to having the function to take three pointers (two for input and one for output) and return a status code. As a result of that unnecessarily error-prone design, the function has to handle the possibility of null pointers, and the caller is expected to handle a status code. But why should such a simple comparison have these failure modes at all?
The danger is further complicated by the fact that neither of the in-parameters is declared const
.
Just pass the two versions by value, and you would eliminate all of that complication! On any modern 32-bit or 64-bit processor, passing a four-byte struct by value should actually be more efficient than passing it by reference — especially since you don't have to dereference the pointers to access each field.
With all of the potential errors out of the way, taking @RolandIllig's suggestion, you could then reduce it down to one chained conditional expression:
bool is_less_than(struct version a, struct version b)
return a.major != b.major ? a.major < b.major :
a.minor != b.minor ? a.minor < b.minor :
a.patch != b.patch ? a.patch < b.patch :
a.build < b.build;
I'd go further and recommend using unsigned short
instead of unsigned char
for the fields. Using unsigned char
for numeric values is awkward, since you would have to cast them when using printf()
. On a 64-bit architecture, a struct with four 2-byte fields would occupy 64 bits, so you wouldn't be saving anything by using unsigned char
instead of unsigned short
.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I don't see any advantage to having the function to take three pointers (two for input and one for output) and return a status code. As a result of that unnecessarily error-prone design, the function has to handle the possibility of null pointers, and the caller is expected to handle a status code. But why should such a simple comparison have these failure modes at all?
The danger is further complicated by the fact that neither of the in-parameters is declared const
.
Just pass the two versions by value, and you would eliminate all of that complication! On any modern 32-bit or 64-bit processor, passing a four-byte struct by value should actually be more efficient than passing it by reference — especially since you don't have to dereference the pointers to access each field.
With all of the potential errors out of the way, taking @RolandIllig's suggestion, you could then reduce it down to one chained conditional expression:
bool is_less_than(struct version a, struct version b)
return a.major != b.major ? a.major < b.major :
a.minor != b.minor ? a.minor < b.minor :
a.patch != b.patch ? a.patch < b.patch :
a.build < b.build;
I'd go further and recommend using unsigned short
instead of unsigned char
for the fields. Using unsigned char
for numeric values is awkward, since you would have to cast them when using printf()
. On a 64-bit architecture, a struct with four 2-byte fields would occupy 64 bits, so you wouldn't be saving anything by using unsigned char
instead of unsigned short
.
$endgroup$
I don't see any advantage to having the function to take three pointers (two for input and one for output) and return a status code. As a result of that unnecessarily error-prone design, the function has to handle the possibility of null pointers, and the caller is expected to handle a status code. But why should such a simple comparison have these failure modes at all?
The danger is further complicated by the fact that neither of the in-parameters is declared const
.
Just pass the two versions by value, and you would eliminate all of that complication! On any modern 32-bit or 64-bit processor, passing a four-byte struct by value should actually be more efficient than passing it by reference — especially since you don't have to dereference the pointers to access each field.
With all of the potential errors out of the way, taking @RolandIllig's suggestion, you could then reduce it down to one chained conditional expression:
bool is_less_than(struct version a, struct version b)
return a.major != b.major ? a.major < b.major :
a.minor != b.minor ? a.minor < b.minor :
a.patch != b.patch ? a.patch < b.patch :
a.build < b.build;
I'd go further and recommend using unsigned short
instead of unsigned char
for the fields. Using unsigned char
for numeric values is awkward, since you would have to cast them when using printf()
. On a 64-bit architecture, a struct with four 2-byte fields would occupy 64 bits, so you wouldn't be saving anything by using unsigned char
instead of unsigned short
.
answered 1 hour ago
200_success200_success
131k17157422
131k17157422
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Return status
You create this:
typedef int STATUS;
#define ERROR -1
#define OKAY 0
which is basically a boolean status. Personally, I'd return a straight bool
.
Bug/Not what you mean
Doing a
result = NULL;
is changing the local variable (parameter) result
. It's not setting the result to NULL. In fact the caller won't probably have a pointer at all, but just a bool
, which cannot properly be NULL.
Shorter version
I'm not sure this is cleaner, but here I go:
bool is_less_than(struct version * original, struct version *compared, bool *result)
Next time, add a driver/test suite to your question, to ease the life of people answering. This can be one:
int main(void)
struct version ref = 1, 2, 21, 8 ;
struct version lower1 = 0, 2, 21, 8 ;
struct version lower2 = 1, 1, 21, 8 ;
struct version lower3 = 1, 2, 20, 8 ;
struct version lower4 = 1, 2, 21, 7 ;
struct version equal = 1, 2, 21, 8 ;
struct version higher1 = 2, 2, 21, 8 ;
struct version higher2 = 1, 3, 21, 8 ;
struct version higher3 = 1, 2, 22, 8 ;
struct version higher4 = 1, 2, 21, 9 ;
#define TEST(a,b,expect1,expect2)
do
bool result1, result2;
is_less_than((a), (b), &result1);
is_less_than((b), (a), &result2);
puts(result1==(expect1) && result2==(expect2)?"ok":"failed");
while(0)
#define TESTL(a,b) TEST(a,b,true,false)
#define TESTE(a,b) TEST(a,b,false,false)
#define TESTH(a,b) TEST(a,b,false,true)
TESTL(&lower1, &ref);
TESTL(&lower2, &ref);
TESTL(&lower3, &ref);
TESTL(&lower4, &ref);
TESTE(&equal, &ref);
TESTH(&higher1, &ref);
TESTH(&higher2, &ref);
TESTH(&higher3, &ref);
TESTH(&higher4, &ref);
return 0;
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
As for every comparator function, the driver/test should compare each pair of example data to at least ensure that the ordering is transitive and thatless(x, x)
is never true.
$endgroup$
– Roland Illig
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
@RolandIllig Updated. Thank you for the suggestion.
$endgroup$
– Costantino Grana
2 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Return status
You create this:
typedef int STATUS;
#define ERROR -1
#define OKAY 0
which is basically a boolean status. Personally, I'd return a straight bool
.
Bug/Not what you mean
Doing a
result = NULL;
is changing the local variable (parameter) result
. It's not setting the result to NULL. In fact the caller won't probably have a pointer at all, but just a bool
, which cannot properly be NULL.
Shorter version
I'm not sure this is cleaner, but here I go:
bool is_less_than(struct version * original, struct version *compared, bool *result)
Next time, add a driver/test suite to your question, to ease the life of people answering. This can be one:
int main(void)
struct version ref = 1, 2, 21, 8 ;
struct version lower1 = 0, 2, 21, 8 ;
struct version lower2 = 1, 1, 21, 8 ;
struct version lower3 = 1, 2, 20, 8 ;
struct version lower4 = 1, 2, 21, 7 ;
struct version equal = 1, 2, 21, 8 ;
struct version higher1 = 2, 2, 21, 8 ;
struct version higher2 = 1, 3, 21, 8 ;
struct version higher3 = 1, 2, 22, 8 ;
struct version higher4 = 1, 2, 21, 9 ;
#define TEST(a,b,expect1,expect2)
do
bool result1, result2;
is_less_than((a), (b), &result1);
is_less_than((b), (a), &result2);
puts(result1==(expect1) && result2==(expect2)?"ok":"failed");
while(0)
#define TESTL(a,b) TEST(a,b,true,false)
#define TESTE(a,b) TEST(a,b,false,false)
#define TESTH(a,b) TEST(a,b,false,true)
TESTL(&lower1, &ref);
TESTL(&lower2, &ref);
TESTL(&lower3, &ref);
TESTL(&lower4, &ref);
TESTE(&equal, &ref);
TESTH(&higher1, &ref);
TESTH(&higher2, &ref);
TESTH(&higher3, &ref);
TESTH(&higher4, &ref);
return 0;
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
As for every comparator function, the driver/test should compare each pair of example data to at least ensure that the ordering is transitive and thatless(x, x)
is never true.
$endgroup$
– Roland Illig
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
@RolandIllig Updated. Thank you for the suggestion.
$endgroup$
– Costantino Grana
2 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Return status
You create this:
typedef int STATUS;
#define ERROR -1
#define OKAY 0
which is basically a boolean status. Personally, I'd return a straight bool
.
Bug/Not what you mean
Doing a
result = NULL;
is changing the local variable (parameter) result
. It's not setting the result to NULL. In fact the caller won't probably have a pointer at all, but just a bool
, which cannot properly be NULL.
Shorter version
I'm not sure this is cleaner, but here I go:
bool is_less_than(struct version * original, struct version *compared, bool *result)
Next time, add a driver/test suite to your question, to ease the life of people answering. This can be one:
int main(void)
struct version ref = 1, 2, 21, 8 ;
struct version lower1 = 0, 2, 21, 8 ;
struct version lower2 = 1, 1, 21, 8 ;
struct version lower3 = 1, 2, 20, 8 ;
struct version lower4 = 1, 2, 21, 7 ;
struct version equal = 1, 2, 21, 8 ;
struct version higher1 = 2, 2, 21, 8 ;
struct version higher2 = 1, 3, 21, 8 ;
struct version higher3 = 1, 2, 22, 8 ;
struct version higher4 = 1, 2, 21, 9 ;
#define TEST(a,b,expect1,expect2)
do
bool result1, result2;
is_less_than((a), (b), &result1);
is_less_than((b), (a), &result2);
puts(result1==(expect1) && result2==(expect2)?"ok":"failed");
while(0)
#define TESTL(a,b) TEST(a,b,true,false)
#define TESTE(a,b) TEST(a,b,false,false)
#define TESTH(a,b) TEST(a,b,false,true)
TESTL(&lower1, &ref);
TESTL(&lower2, &ref);
TESTL(&lower3, &ref);
TESTL(&lower4, &ref);
TESTE(&equal, &ref);
TESTH(&higher1, &ref);
TESTH(&higher2, &ref);
TESTH(&higher3, &ref);
TESTH(&higher4, &ref);
return 0;
$endgroup$
Return status
You create this:
typedef int STATUS;
#define ERROR -1
#define OKAY 0
which is basically a boolean status. Personally, I'd return a straight bool
.
Bug/Not what you mean
Doing a
result = NULL;
is changing the local variable (parameter) result
. It's not setting the result to NULL. In fact the caller won't probably have a pointer at all, but just a bool
, which cannot properly be NULL.
Shorter version
I'm not sure this is cleaner, but here I go:
bool is_less_than(struct version * original, struct version *compared, bool *result)
Next time, add a driver/test suite to your question, to ease the life of people answering. This can be one:
int main(void)
struct version ref = 1, 2, 21, 8 ;
struct version lower1 = 0, 2, 21, 8 ;
struct version lower2 = 1, 1, 21, 8 ;
struct version lower3 = 1, 2, 20, 8 ;
struct version lower4 = 1, 2, 21, 7 ;
struct version equal = 1, 2, 21, 8 ;
struct version higher1 = 2, 2, 21, 8 ;
struct version higher2 = 1, 3, 21, 8 ;
struct version higher3 = 1, 2, 22, 8 ;
struct version higher4 = 1, 2, 21, 9 ;
#define TEST(a,b,expect1,expect2)
do
bool result1, result2;
is_less_than((a), (b), &result1);
is_less_than((b), (a), &result2);
puts(result1==(expect1) && result2==(expect2)?"ok":"failed");
while(0)
#define TESTL(a,b) TEST(a,b,true,false)
#define TESTE(a,b) TEST(a,b,false,false)
#define TESTH(a,b) TEST(a,b,false,true)
TESTL(&lower1, &ref);
TESTL(&lower2, &ref);
TESTL(&lower3, &ref);
TESTL(&lower4, &ref);
TESTE(&equal, &ref);
TESTH(&higher1, &ref);
TESTH(&higher2, &ref);
TESTH(&higher3, &ref);
TESTH(&higher4, &ref);
return 0;
edited 2 hours ago
answered 2 hours ago
Costantino GranaCostantino Grana
18728
18728
1
$begingroup$
As for every comparator function, the driver/test should compare each pair of example data to at least ensure that the ordering is transitive and thatless(x, x)
is never true.
$endgroup$
– Roland Illig
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
@RolandIllig Updated. Thank you for the suggestion.
$endgroup$
– Costantino Grana
2 hours ago
add a comment |
1
$begingroup$
As for every comparator function, the driver/test should compare each pair of example data to at least ensure that the ordering is transitive and thatless(x, x)
is never true.
$endgroup$
– Roland Illig
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
@RolandIllig Updated. Thank you for the suggestion.
$endgroup$
– Costantino Grana
2 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
As for every comparator function, the driver/test should compare each pair of example data to at least ensure that the ordering is transitive and that
less(x, x)
is never true.$endgroup$
– Roland Illig
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
As for every comparator function, the driver/test should compare each pair of example data to at least ensure that the ordering is transitive and that
less(x, x)
is never true.$endgroup$
– Roland Illig
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
@RolandIllig Updated. Thank you for the suggestion.
$endgroup$
– Costantino Grana
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
@RolandIllig Updated. Thank you for the suggestion.
$endgroup$
– Costantino Grana
2 hours ago
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Code Review Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fcodereview.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f217587%2fcompare-a-given-version-number-in-the-form-major-minor-build-patch-and-see-if-on%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown