From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 17 Aug 2001 05:16:32 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 17 Aug 2001 05:16:22 -0400 Received: from router-100M.swansea.linux.org.uk ([194.168.151.17]:19212 "EHLO the-village.bc.nu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 17 Aug 2001 05:16:08 -0400 Subject: Re: 2.4.9 does not compile [PATCH] To: davem@redhat.com (David S. Miller) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 10:11:17 +0100 (BST) Cc: aia21@cam.ac.uk, tpepper@vato.org, f5ibh@db0bm.ampr.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: from "David S. Miller" at Aug 16, 2001 04:38:52 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL5] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: From: Alan Cox Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > From: Anton Altaparmakov > Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 00:22:43 +0100 > > IMHO, it would have been more elegant to use the typeof construct provided > by gcc in the new macro instead of introducing a type parameter like this... > > The whole point was to make users explicitly state the type so they > would have to think about it. And doing it by forcing them all to change their macro names isnt the right solution. Its actually basically impossible to do back compat macros with this mess. Your original smin() umin() proposal was _much_ saner. As I've said, -ac will use typed_min(a,b,c), and that way I can propogate back compatibility glue. Alan