#11 nick/channel compare functions

closed-wont-fix
SHiZNO
None
5
2008-06-02
2005-05-15
SHiZNO
No

When comparing nicks or channels to eachother certain
chars are the same such as \ and |. We need a function
for easy comparison.

Discussion

  • MerlinDMC
    MerlinDMC
    2005-11-10

    Logged In: YES
    user_id=455988

    - case insensitive
    - scandinavian case
    { == [
    } == ]
    | == \

    - behaves like the normal strcmp in return values (0 for
    full match)

    ( table is generated with an easy python script ... could be
    done without but this way it should be faster )

    int irc_compare(const char* s1, const char* s2)
    {
    static unsigned char __table[256] = {
    0x00, 0x01, 0x02, 0x03, 0x04, 0x05, 0x06, 0x07,
    0x08, 0x09, 0x0a, 0x0b, 0x0c, 0x0d, 0x0e, 0x0f,
    0x10, 0x11, 0x12, 0x13, 0x14, 0x15, 0x16, 0x17,
    0x18, 0x19, 0x1a, 0x1b, 0x1c, 0x1d, 0x1e, 0x1f,
    0x20, 0x21, 0x22, 0x23, 0x24, 0x25, 0x26, 0x27,
    0x28, 0x29, 0x2a, 0x2b, 0x2c, 0x2d, 0x2e, 0x2f,
    0x30, 0x31, 0x32, 0x33, 0x34, 0x35, 0x36, 0x37,
    0x38, 0x39, 0x3a, 0x3b, 0x3c, 0x3d, 0x3e, 0x3f,
    0x40, 0x61, 0x62, 0x63, 0x64, 0x65, 0x66, 0x67,
    0x68, 0x69, 0x6a, 0x6b, 0x6c, 0x6d, 0x6e, 0x6f,
    0x70, 0x71, 0x72, 0x73, 0x74, 0x75, 0x76, 0x77,
    0x78, 0x79, 0x7a, 0x5b, 0x5c, 0x5d, 0x5e, 0x5f,
    0x60, 0x61, 0x62, 0x63, 0x64, 0x65, 0x66, 0x67,
    0x68, 0x69, 0x6a, 0x6b, 0x6c, 0x6d, 0x6e, 0x6f,
    0x70, 0x71, 0x72, 0x73, 0x74, 0x75, 0x76, 0x77,
    0x78, 0x79, 0x7a, 0x5b, 0x5c, 0x5d, 0x7e, 0x7f,
    0x80, 0x81, 0x82, 0x83, 0x84, 0x85, 0x86, 0x87,
    0x88, 0x89, 0x8a, 0x8b, 0x8c, 0x8d, 0x8e, 0x8f,
    0x90, 0x91, 0x92, 0x93, 0x94, 0x95, 0x96, 0x97,
    0x98, 0x99, 0x9a, 0x9b, 0x9c, 0x9d, 0x9e, 0x9f,
    0xa0, 0xa1, 0xa2, 0xa3, 0xa4, 0xa5, 0xa6, 0xa7,
    0xa8, 0xa9, 0xaa, 0xab, 0xac, 0xad, 0xae, 0xaf,
    0xb0, 0xb1, 0xb2, 0xb3, 0xb4, 0xb5, 0xb6, 0xb7,
    0xb8, 0xb9, 0xba, 0xbb, 0xbc, 0xbd, 0xbe, 0xbf,
    0xc0, 0xc1, 0xc2, 0xc3, 0xc4, 0xc5, 0xc6, 0xc7,
    0xc8, 0xc9, 0xca, 0xcb, 0xcc, 0xcd, 0xce, 0xcf,
    0xd0, 0xd1, 0xd2, 0xd3, 0xd4, 0xd5, 0xd6, 0xd7,
    0xd8, 0xd9, 0xda, 0xdb, 0xdc, 0xdd, 0xde, 0xdf,
    0xe0, 0xe1, 0xe2, 0xe3, 0xe4, 0xe5, 0xe6, 0xe7,
    0xe8, 0xe9, 0xea, 0xeb, 0xec, 0xed, 0xee, 0xef,
    0xf0, 0xf1, 0xf2, 0xf3, 0xf4, 0xf5, 0xf6, 0xf7,
    0xf8, 0xf9, 0xfa, 0xfb, 0xfc, 0xfd, 0xfe, 0xff
    };

    int result = 0;

    while (*s1 && *s2 && result == 0)
    {
    result = __table[*s1++] - __table[*s2++];
    }

    if (result == 0)
    {
    result = *s1 - *s2;
    }

    if (result != 0)
    {
    result = (result > 0) ? 1 : -1;
    }

    return result;
    }

     
  • Psychon
    Psychon
    2007-06-14

    Logged In: YES
    user_id=1654410
    Originator: NO

    I think a fix for this bug should also handle the CASEMAPPING=rfc1459 token in raw 005 (ISUPPORT).

     
  • Psychon
    Psychon
    2008-05-01

    Logged In: YES
    user_id=1654410
    Originator: NO

    Afaik we didn't run into any bugs due to this, which means our current method (mostly using str::strings::operator=) seems to work well enough.

    Objections to ignoring, closing and burying this one six feet under?

    psychon

     
  • Psychon
    Psychon
    2008-06-02

    Logged In: YES
    user_id=1654410
    Originator: NO

    Nothing has been done to this in more than three years, let's ignore it (yay for ignoring bugs ;) ).

    psychon

     
  • Psychon
    Psychon
    2008-06-02

    • status: open --> closed-wont-fix