Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!gatech!ncar!ames!uhccux!munnari.oz.au!cs.mu.oz.au!ok
From: ok@cs.mu.oz.au (Richard O'Keefe)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Function-types: compatability, and typedefs
Summary: sorry, old manual
Message-ID: <1999@munnari.oz.au>
Date: 3 Sep 89 06:21:33 GMT
References: <KERS.89Aug31164048@cdollin.hpl.hp.com> <19361@mimsy.UUCP> <1989Sep1.113440.28300@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu>
Sender: news@cs.mu.oz.au
Distribution: comp
Lines: 16

In article <1989Sep1.113440.28300@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu>, flaps@dgp.toronto.edu (Alan J Rosenthal) writes:
> ok@cs.mu.oz.au (Richard O'Keefe) writes:
> >What you need is
> >    int strptrcmp(char **s1, char **s2)
> >	{ return strcmp(*s1, *s2); }

> Actually, you should write
>     int strptrcmp(void *s1, void *s2)
>	{ return(strcmp(*(char **)s1, *(char **)s2)); }

Sorry; I was working from an old manual with char *base and so on.
I haven't got a current AN$I C draft: too co$tly.

If you're sorting an array of numbers, a half-way decent radix sort will
GROSSLY outperform qsort(), and if you're sorting anything else qsort()
is too inefficient anyway.