At Fri, 16 Jun 2023 11:28:47 -0700, Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com> wrote in
> On Fri, Jun 16, 2023 at 04:51:38PM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> > (Honestly, the rearrangement code looks somewhat tricky to grasp..)
>
> Yeah, I think there's still some room for improvement here.
The argv elements get shuffled around many times with the
patch. However, I couldn't find a way to decrease the count without
resorting to a forward scan. So I've concluded the current approach
is them most effeicient, considering the complexity.
> Ah, so it effectively retains the non-option ordering, even if there is a
> '--'. I think this behavior is worth keeping. I attempted to fix this in
> the attached patch.
I tried some patterns with the patch and it generates the same results
with the glibc version.
The TAP test looks fine and it catches the change.
Everything looks fine to me.
regards.
--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center