Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!watdragon!jmsellens
From: jmsellens@watdragon.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c,comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: MSC toupper (was  Re: MS-DOS NRO )
Message-ID: <2863@watdragon.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 1-Jun-87 14:56:27 EDT
Article-I.D.: watdrago.2863
Posted: Mon Jun  1 14:56:27 1987
Date-Received: Tue, 2-Jun-87 01:36:18 EDT
References: <405@ritcv.UUCP> <725@thumper.UUCP> <345@polyslo.UUCP>
Reply-To: jmsellens@watdragon.UUCP (John M. Sellens)
Distribution: na
Organization: U. of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 35
Xref: utgpu comp.lang.c:2169 comp.sys.ibm.pc:3920
Summary: I wish you guys would pay attention ...

In article <5915@brl-smoke.ARPA> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>) writes:
>In article <1163@oliveb.UUCP> rap@olivej.UUCP (Robert A. Pease) writes:
>>In article <6933@alice.UUCP> ark@alice.UUCP writes:
>>>In article <348@polyslo.UUCP>, mpatnode@polyslo.UUCP writes:
>>>-> #define toupper	((isupper(c)) ? _tolower(c) : (c))
>>>Gee, I guess MSC 3.00 is broken, then.  Maybe they'll fix it in 4.0
>>Its all spelled out.
>
>It sure is, and if MicroSoft wants to be standard-conforming,
>they're going to have to fix this bug.  Just because they
>document it doesn't make it right.

They already have it fixed, as WAS POINTED OUT IN THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE!!!
ark@alice wasn't paying attention, and chopped out the part of the article
that said that it was fixed in MSC 4.0.  And I quote:

<Message-ID: <348@polyslo.UUCP>
<
<In article <2065@husc6.UUCP> ddl@husc6.UUCP (Dan Lanciani) writes:
<...
<>	Not quite.  This is a no-no, but for a different reason.  The macros
<>toupper and tolower do not evaluate their arguments more than once.  (At
<>least on BSD and MSC 4.0 and other "compatible" systems.)  In order to
<>avoid multiple eveluation, these macros do NOT check that their arguments
<>are suitable.
<	Well Dan this is straight out of my ctype.h:
<
<#define toupper	((isupper(c)) ? _tolower(c) : (c))
<
<      Upon closer evaluation I now see the argument is only evaluated 2
<      times.  But this was with MSC 3.00 so 4.0 may have change.
<...


PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE READ the article you are following up to!!