[lkml]   [2001]   [Aug]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [IDEA+RFC] Possible solution for min()/max() war
"A month of sundays ago David Weinehall wrote:"
> On Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 06:38:40PM +0200, Peter T. Breuer wrote:
> > "Linus Torvalds wrote:"
> > > What if the "int" happens to be negative?
> >
> > if sizeof(typeof(a)) != sizeof(typeof(b))
> > BUG() // sizes differ
> > const (typeof(a)) _a = ~(typeof(a))0
> > const (typeof(b)) _b = ~(typeof(b))0
> > if _a < 0 && _b > 0 || _a > 0 && b < 0
> > BUG() // one signed, the other unsigned
> > standard_max(a,b)
> <disgusting vomit-sound>Do you really want code like that in the
> kernel (yes, I know that there are code that can compete with it in

Have you read it? Do you not realize That it optimizes down to BUG() or
the standard min/max? By BUG(), I was hoping that somebody could
produce some magic that doesn't even compile when it reduces to that,
but maybe that's too much to hope for from gcc.

> ugliness</disgusting vomit-sound>

If that's the limit of the audiences intelligence, I don't think
I'll bother bothering to think next time! I rather hoped instead
for people to pick up the idea and tell me about the problem
left to cover (void* ? what if the arch does not have 2's complement

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 13:01    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital Ocean