[lkml]   [2001]   [Aug]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: macro conflict
    From: "Andrew Cannon" <>
    > What about this then:
    > #define min(x,y) ({typeof(x) __x=(x); typeof(y) __y=(y); (__x < __y) ?
    > __x : __y})
    > This is guaranteed to work the same as the old min/max in all cases but
    > without side effects. You can still force the comparison to be done with
    > a certain type by casting the arguments first:

    Well it's closer but not really what i want.
    The min/max_type is maybe the way to go, but the above can still bit you if
    the types differ. Consider max().

    char lut[256];
    int c1 = 256+rand()%256;
    char c2 = rand()%256;
    char dest = lut[max(c2,c1)];

    Won't c1 still be returned untruncated?

    Ofcourse one will use another construct for these kinds of checks, but maybe
    your brain collapses just for a second and think that this will return a

    OK ok bad example, but maybe you see that i have a point here somewhere
    (under my chair? :) ).


    Programmer/Networker [|] Magnus Naeslund
    PGP Key:

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 12:58    [W:0.027 / U:89.344 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site