[lkml]   [2001]   [Aug]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: macro conflict

"Magnus Naeslund(f)" wrote:
> From: <>
> > Without digging through the archives to see if this has already
> > been suggested (if so, I apologize), why can't the following be done:
> >
> > min(x,y) = ({typeof((x)) __x=(x), __y=(y); (__x < __y) ? __x : __y})
> >
> > That gets you the correct "evaluate the args once" semantics and gives
> > you control over typing (the comparison is done in the type of the
> > first argument) and we don't have to change a zillion drivers.
> >
> > (typeof() is a gcc extension.)
> >
> But then again, how do you know it's the type of x we want, maybe we want
> type of y, that is and signed char (not an int like x).
> Talk about hidden buffer overflow stuff :)

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:

#define typed_min(type, x, y) (min((type)(x), (type)(y)))

...although, if the type used for the comparison is so critical you
maybe shouldn't be hiding it in a macro anyway.

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:0.101 / U:0.616 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site