Brad Chapman <kakadu_croc@yahoo.com> writes:
|> Everyone,
|>
|> From reading this thread, I believe I have come up with several reasons,
|> IMHO, why the old min()/max() macros were not usable:
|>
|> - They did not take into account non-typesafe comparisons
|> - They were too generic
|> - Some versions, IIRC, relied on typeof()
|> - They did not take into account signed/unsigned conversions
|>
|> I have also discovered one problem with the new three-arg min()/max()
|> macro: it forces both arguments to be the same, thus preventing signed/unsigned
|> comparisons.
There is no such thing as signed/unsigned comparision in C. Any
comparison is either signed or unsigned, depending on whether the common
type of arguments after applying the usual arithmetic conversions is
signed or unsigned.
|> Thus, I have a humble idea: add another type argument!
This does not bye you anything because the there can only be one common
type anyway.
Andreas.
-- Andreas Schwab "And now for something SuSE Labs completely different." Andreas.Schwab@suse.de SuSE GmbH, Schanzäckerstr. 10, D-90443 Nürnberg Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756 01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Aug 31 2001 - 21:00:31 EST