[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
Graham Murray <> writes:

> Daniel Phillips <> writes:
> > More than anything, it shows that education is needed, not macro patch-ups.
> > We have exactly the same issues with < and >, should we introduce
> > three-argument macros to replace them?
> Would it not have been much more "obvious" if the rules for
> unsigned/signed integer comparisons (irrespective of the widths
> involved) were
> 1) If the signed element is negative then it is always less than the
> unsigned element.
> 2) If the unsigned element is greater than then maximum positive value
> expressible by the signed one then it is always greater.
> 3) Only if both values are positive and within the range of the
> smaller element are the actual values compared.

With infinite-precision arithmetic, yes; of course min() should just
return the smaller value.

But what would the C type of "min" be for comparing, say, signed and
unsigned longs? The range of possible results does not fit in any
integral type. (Repeat the question for signed/unsigned "long long"
if "long long" is your answer.)

- Pat
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    [W:0.181 / U:0.180 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site