linux/macros.h(new) and linux/list.h(mod) ...

linux/macros.h(new) and linux/list.h(mod) ...

[Davide Libenzi]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 292 bytes --]


This patch add a new linux/macros.h that is supposed to host utility macros
that otherwise developers are forced to define in their files.
This version contain only min(), max() and abs().
The other change is to linux/list.h by adding two members list_first() and
list_last().




- Davide


[-- Attachment #2: misc.diff --]
[-- Type: application/octet-stream, Size: 1077 bytes --]

diff -NBbru linux-2.4.6.vanilla/include/linux/list.h linux-2.4.6/include/linux/list.h
--- linux-2.4.6.vanilla/include/linux/list.h	Fri Feb 16 16:06:17 2001
+++ linux-2.4.6/include/linux/list.h	Mon Jul  2 16:14:27 2001
@@ -148,6 +148,10 @@
  */
 #define list_for_each(pos, head) \
 	for (pos = (head)->next; pos != (head); pos = pos->next)
+
+#define list_first(head)	(((head)->next != (head)) ? (head)->next: (struct list_head *) 0)
+
+#define list_last(head)	(((head)->prev != (head)) ? (head)->prev: (struct list_head *) 0)

 #endif /* __KERNEL__ || _LVM_H_INCLUDE */

diff -NBbru linux-2.4.6.vanilla/include/linux/macros.h linux-2.4.6/include/linux/macros.h
--- linux-2.4.6.vanilla/include/linux/macros.h	Wed Dec 31 16:00:00 1969
+++ linux-2.4.6/include/linux/macros.h	Wed Jul  4 16:41:31 2001
@@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
+#ifndef _LINUX_MACROS_H
+#define _LINUX_MACROS_H
+
+
+#ifndef min
+#define min(a, b)	(((a) < (b)) ? (a): (b))
+#endif
+
+#ifndef max
+#define max(a, b)	(((a) > (b)) ? (a): (b))
+#endif
+
+#ifndef abs
+#define abs(a)	(((a) > 0) ? (a): -(a))
+#endif
+
+
+
+#endif

Re: linux/macros.h(new) and linux/list.h(mod) ...

[David Woodhouse]

davidel@xmailserver.org said:
> This patch add a new linux/macros.h that is supposed to host utility
> macros that otherwise developers are forced to define in their files.
> This version contain only min(), max() and abs(). 

Consider min(x++,y++). Try:

#define min(x,y) ({ typeof((x)) _x = (x); typeof((y)) _y = (y); (_x>_y)?_y:_x; })
#define max(x,y) ({ typeof((x)) _x = (x); typeof((y)) _y = (y); (_x>_y)?_x:_y; })


--
dwmw2

Re: linux/macros.h(new) and linux/list.h(mod) ...

[Davide Libenzi]

On 05-Jul-2001 David Woodhouse wrote:
> 
> davidel@xmailserver.org said:
>> This patch add a new linux/macros.h that is supposed to host utility
>> macros that otherwise developers are forced to define in their files.
>> This version contain only min(), max() and abs(). 
> 
> Consider min(x++,y++). Try:
> 
>#define min(x,y) ({ typeof((x)) _x = (x); typeof((y)) _y = (y); (_x>_y)?_y:_x;
>#})
>#define max(x,y) ({ typeof((x)) _x = (x); typeof((y)) _y = (y); (_x>_y)?_x:_y;
>#})

Yep, it's better.




- Davide

Re: linux/macros.h(new) and linux/list.h(mod) ...

[Hua Zhong]

Doesn't it add more overhead?  I think using inline functions are much better. 
 Yes you have to define it for different types (char, short, int, long, 
signed/unsigned).

> Yep, it's better.
> 
> 
> - Davide

Re: linux/macros.h(new) and linux/list.h(mod) ...

[David Woodhouse]

huaz@cs.columbia.edu said:
>  Doesn't it add more overhead?  I think using inline functions are
> much better. 

Why should it add overhead? Even the most naïve compiler ought to generate 
the same code, surely? I must admit I haven't looked hard at the output - 
it didn't even occur to me that it might produce suboptimal code.

>  Yes you have to define it for different types (char, short, int,
> long,  signed/unsigned). 

Unfortunately, this being C means that you can't call them all by the same 
name. If I have to use unsigned_long_max(x,y) I'd rather type it out myself 
:)

--
dwmw2

Re: linux/macros.h(new) and linux/list.h(mod) ...

[Kai Germaschewski]

On Thu, 5 Jul 2001, Davide Libenzi wrote:

> This patch add a new linux/macros.h that is supposed to host utility macros
> that otherwise developers are forced to define in their files.
> This version contain only min(), max() and abs().

It's a good old tradition to put macros in uppercase letters. This would 
have avoided one fatal error in your patch, the conflict with the gcc 
built-in 
	
	int abs(int);

which has it's prototype in include/linux/kernel.h. There's places which 
depend on this and would break with your macro.

Also, unless you have more macros in mind, it may make sense to just place 
MIN, MAX in kernel.h and of course to remove similar macro definitions 
throughout the kernel and replace them by the commonly defined ones.

--Kai

Re: linux/macros.h(new) and linux/list.h(mod) ...

[Davide Libenzi]

On 05-Jul-2001 Hua Zhong wrote:
> 
> Doesn't it add more overhead?  I think using inline functions are much
> better. 
>  Yes you have to define it for different types (char, short, int, long, 
> signed/unsigned).

Yes it does.
Personally I know that min, max, etc... are macros and I never use unary
operators inside.
Maybe a "unsafe" __max() and a "safe" max() could coexist.




- Davide

Re: linux/macros.h(new) and linux/list.h(mod) ...

[J . A . Magallon]

On 20010705 Davide Libenzi wrote:
>
>On 05-Jul-2001 David Woodhouse wrote:
>> 
>> davidel@xmailserver.org said:
>>> This patch add a new linux/macros.h that is supposed to host utility
>>> macros that otherwise developers are forced to define in their files.
>>> This version contain only min(), max() and abs(). 
>> 
>> Consider min(x++,y++). Try:
>> 
>>#define min(x,y) ({ typeof((x)) _x = (x); typeof((y)) _y = (y); (_x>_y)?_y:_x;
>>#})
>>#define max(x,y) ({ typeof((x)) _x = (x); typeof((y)) _y = (y); (_x>_y)?_x:_y;
>>#})
>
>Yep, it's better.

And there could be others also usefull:

#define ztst(x,y)	(x ?: y)   // `x' if that is nonzero; otherwise, of `y'

If g++ extensions worked in plain C, you just could write:
#define min(x,y) (x <? y)
#define max(x,y) (x >? y)

-- 
J.A. Magallon                           #  Let the source be with you...        
mailto:jamagallon@able.es
Mandrake Linux release 8.1 (Cooker) for i586
Linux werewolf 2.4.6-ac1 #2 SMP Thu Jul 5 01:15:49 CEST 2001 i686

Re: linux/macros.h(new) and linux/list.h(mod) ...

[Hua Zhong]

-> From David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org> :
> 
> huaz@cs.columbia.edu said:
> >  Doesn't it add more overhead?  I think using inline functions are
> > much better. 
> 
> Why should it add overhead? Even the most naïve compiler ought to generate 
> the same code, surely? I must admit I haven't looked hard at the output - 
> it didn't even occur to me that it might produce suboptimal code.

right, gcc -O2 does produce the same code (but -O does not).

> 
> >  Yes you have to define it for different types (char, short, int,
> > long,  signed/unsigned). 
> 
> Unfortunately, this being C means that you can't call them all by the same 
> name. If I have to use unsigned_long_max(x,y) I'd rather type it out myself 
> :)

Oops, I must be sleeping at that time :-)
 
> --
> dwmw2
> 
> 

Re: linux/macros.h(new) and linux/list.h(mod) ...

[Daniel Phillips]

On Thursday 05 July 2001 23:45, Davide Libenzi wrote:
> On 05-Jul-2001 David Woodhouse wrote:
> > davidel@xmailserver.org said:
> >> This patch add a new linux/macros.h that is supposed to host utility
> >> macros that otherwise developers are forced to define in their files.
> >> This version contain only min(), max() and abs().
> >
> > Consider min(x++,y++). Try:
> >
> >#define min(x,y) ({ typeof((x)) _x = (x); typeof((y)) _y = (y);
> > (_x>_y)?_y:_x; #})
> >#define max(x,y) ({ typeof((x)) _x = (x); typeof((y)) _y = (y);
> > (_x>_y)?_x:_y; #})
>
> Yep, it's better.

This program prints garbage:

	#define min(x,y) ({ typeof((x)) _x = (x); typeof((y)) _y = (y); (_x>_y)?_y:_x; })
	
	int main (void) { 
		int _x = 3, _y = 4; 
		printf("%i\n", min(_x, _y)); 
		return 0; 
	}

--
Daniel

Re: linux/macros.h(new) and linux/list.h(mod) ...

[David Woodhouse]

phillips@bonn-fries.net said:
> This program prints garbage:
> 	#define min(x,y) ({ typeof((x)) _x = (x); typeof((y)) _y = (y); (_x>_y)?_y:_x; })
> 	 	int main (void) { 
> 		int _x = 3, _y = 4; 
> 		printf("%i\n", min(_x, _y)); 
> 		return 0; 
> 	} 

Life's a bitch.
cf. get_user(__ret_gu, __val_gu); (on i386)

Time to invent a gcc extension which gives us unique names? :)

--
dwmw2

Re: linux/macros.h(new) and linux/list.h(mod) ...

[Davide Libenzi]

On 05-Jul-2001 David Woodhouse wrote:
> 
> phillips@bonn-fries.net said:
>> This program prints garbage:
>>      #define min(x,y) ({ typeof((x)) _x = (x); typeof((y)) _y = (y);
>>      #(_x>_y)?_y:_x; })
>>              int main (void) { 
>>              int _x = 3, _y = 4; 
>>              printf("%i\n", min(_x, _y)); 
>>              return 0; 
>>      } 
> 
> Life's a bitch.
> cf. get_user(__ret_gu, __val_gu); (on i386)
> 
> Time to invent a gcc extension which gives us unique names? :)

Something like ::(x) to move up one level the name resolution for example.



- Davide

Re: linux/macros.h(new) and linux/list.h(mod) ...

[Alan Cox]

> Life's a bitch.
> cf. get_user(__ret_gu, __val_gu); (on i386)
> 
> Time to invent a gcc extension which gives us unique names? :)

#define min(a,b) __magic_minfoo(a,b, __var##__LINE__, __var2##__LINE__)

#define __magic_minfoo(A,B,C,D) \
	{ typeof(A) C = (A)  .... }


Alan

Re: linux/macros.h(new) and linux/list.h(mod) ...

[Matthew Dharm]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1089 bytes --]

Better, but throwing __FILE__ in there would be good too...

Come to think of it, tho, we have multiple files named the same thing in
multiple places on the kernel tree... even __var##__LINE__##__FILE__ isn't
_guaranteed_ to be unique.

Matt

On Thu, Jul 05, 2001 at 11:57:11PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > Life's a bitch.
> > cf. get_user(__ret_gu, __val_gu); (on i386)
> > 
> > Time to invent a gcc extension which gives us unique names? :)
> 
> #define min(a,b) __magic_minfoo(a,b, __var##__LINE__, __var2##__LINE__)
> 
> #define __magic_minfoo(A,B,C,D) \
> 	{ typeof(A) C = (A)  .... }
> 
> 
> Alan
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

-- 
Matthew Dharm                              Home: mdharm-usb@one-eyed-alien.net 
Maintainer, Linux USB Mass Storage Driver

Ye gods! I have feet??!
					-- Dust Puppy
User Friendly, 12/4/1997

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 232 bytes --]

Re: linux/macros.h(new) and linux/list.h(mod) ...

[Alan Cox]

> Better, but throwing __FILE__ in there would be good too...

Totally inappropriate. These are not global variables and a filename is not
legal variable namespace anyway

Re: linux/macros.h(new) and linux/list.h(mod) ...

[David Woodhouse]

#define min(a,b) __magic_minfoo(a,b, __var##__LINE__, __var2##__LINE__)

#define __magic_minfoo(A,B,C,D) \
	({ typeof(A) C = (A); typeof(B) D = (B); C>D?D:C; })

void main(void)
{
	int __var11=5, __var211=7;

	printf("min(%d,%d) = %d (should be 11: %d)\n", __var11, __var211, min(__var11, __var211), __LINE__);
}


--
dwmw2

Re: linux/macros.h(new) and linux/list.h(mod) ...

[Davide Libenzi]

On 05-Jul-2001 Alan Cox wrote:
>> Life's a bitch.
>> cf. get_user(__ret_gu, __val_gu); (on i386)
>> 
>> Time to invent a gcc extension which gives us unique names? :)
> 
>#define min(a,b) __magic_minfoo(a,b, __var##__LINE__, __var2##__LINE__)
> 
>#define __magic_minfoo(A,B,C,D) \
>       { typeof(A) C = (A)  .... }

Anyway I think that :

int _a = 5;

for (;;) {
        int _a = _a;
        ...
}

must :

1) assign the upper level value of _a

or :

2) generate an compiler error





- Davide

Re: linux/macros.h(new) and linux/list.h(mod) ...

[J . A . Magallon]

On 20010706 Davide Libenzi wrote:
>
>On 05-Jul-2001 David Woodhouse wrote:
>> 
>> phillips@bonn-fries.net said:
>>> This program prints garbage:
>>>      #define min(x,y) ({ typeof((x)) _x = (x); typeof((y)) _y = (y);
>>>      #(_x>_y)?_y:_x; })
>>>              int main (void) { 
>>>              int _x = 3, _y = 4; 
>>>              printf("%i\n", min(_x, _y)); 
>>>              return 0; 
>>>      } 
>> 
>> Life's a bitch.
>> cf. get_user(__ret_gu, __val_gu); (on i386)
>> 
>> Time to invent a gcc extension which gives us unique names? :)
>
>Something like ::(x) to move up one level the name resolution for example.
>

Tell gcc people to support <? and >? in C besides C++.

-- 
J.A. Magallon                           #  Let the source be with you...        
mailto:jamagallon@able.es
Mandrake Linux release 8.1 (Cooker) for i586
Linux werewolf 2.4.6-ac1 #2 SMP Thu Jul 5 01:15:49 CEST 2001 i686

Re: linux/macros.h(new) and linux/list.h(mod) ...

[Daniel Phillips]

On Friday 06 July 2001 01:49, you wrote:
> On Friday 06 July 2001 01:21, Davide Libenzi wrote:
> > On 05-Jul-2001 Alan Cox wrote:
> > >> Life's a bitch.
> > >> cf. get_user(__ret_gu, __val_gu); (on i386)
> > >>
> > >> Time to invent a gcc extension which gives us unique names? :)
> > >
> > >#define min(a,b) __magic_minfoo(a,b, __var##__LINE__, __var2##__LINE__)
> > >
> > >#define __magic_minfoo(A,B,C,D) \
> > >       { typeof(A) C = (A)  .... }
> >
> > Anyway I think that :
> >
> > int _a = 5;
> >
> > for (;;) {
> >         int _a = _a;
> >         ...
> > }
> >
> > must :
> >
> > 1) assign the upper level value of _a
> >
> > or :
> >
> > 2) generate an compiler error
>
> Well, I happen to agree with you, but in this case, c's scope rules
> are stupidly broken, they are not going to change, and we have to
> live with it ;-)
>
> --
> Daniel

Re: linux/macros.h(new) and linux/list.h(mod) ...

[Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo]

Em Fri, Jul 06, 2001 at 12:08:55AM +0100, David Woodhouse escreveu:
> 
> #define min(a,b) __magic_minfoo(a,b, __var##__LINE__, __var2##__LINE__)
> 
> #define __magic_minfoo(A,B,C,D) \
> 	({ typeof(A) C = (A); typeof(B) D = (B); C>D?D:C; })
> 
> void main(void)
> {
> 	int __var11=5, __var211=7;
> 
> 	printf("min(%d,%d) = %d (should be 11: %d)\n", __var11, __var211, min(__var11, __var211), __LINE__);
> }

Have you looked at the preprocessor output?

[acme@brinquedo /tmp]$ gcc -E a.c -o -   # or 'cpp < a.c'
# 1 "a.c"
void main(void)
{
        int __var11=5, __var211=7;

        printf("min(%d,%d) = %d (should be 11: %d)\n", __var11, __var211,
+ ({ typeof(  __var11  )   __var__LINE__  = (  __var11  ); typeof(
__var211  )   __var2__LINE__  = (   __var211  );   __var__LINE__ >
__var2__LINE__ ?  __var2__LINE__ :  __var__LINE__ ; })  , 11);
}

I didn't found a way to generate unique variable names using __LINE__

- Arnaldo

Re: linux/macros.h(new) and linux/list.h(mod) ...

[Neil Booth]

Alan Cox wrote:-

> #define min(a,b) __magic_minfoo(a,b, __var##__LINE__, __var2##__LINE__)
> 
> #define __magic_minfoo(A,B,C,D) \
> 	{ typeof(A) C = (A)  .... }

No, that's buggy.  You need an extra level of indirection to expand
__LINE__.  Arguments to ## are inserted in-place without expansion.

Neil.

Re: linux/macros.h(new) and linux/list.h(mod) ...

[Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo]

Em Fri, Jul 06, 2001 at 06:38:04PM +0100, Neil Booth escreveu:
> Alan Cox wrote:-
> 
> > #define min(a,b) __magic_minfoo(a,b, __var##__LINE__, __var2##__LINE__)
> > 
> > #define __magic_minfoo(A,B,C,D) \
> > 	{ typeof(A) C = (A)  .... }
> 
> No, that's buggy.  You need an extra level of indirection to expand
> __LINE__.  Arguments to ## are inserted in-place without expansion.

yes, so lets try with another indirection and see if I'm missing something
that you could clarify :)

[acme@brinquedo __attribute__]$ cat b.c
#define _min(a,b,line) __magic_minfoo(a,b, __var##line, __var2##line)
#define min(a,b) _min(a,b,__LINE__)

#define __magic_minfoo(A,B,C,D) \
       ({ typeof(A) C = (A); typeof(B) D = (B); C>D?D:C; })

void main(void)
{
      int __var11=5, __var211=7;

      printf("min(%d,%d) = %d (should be 11: %d)\n", __var11, __var211,
             min(__var11, __var211), __LINE__);
}
[acme@brinquedo __attribute__]$ cpp < b.c
# 1 ""
void main(void)
{
      int __var11=5, __var211=7;

      printf("min(%d,%d) = %d (should be 11: %d)\n", __var11, __var211,
             ({ typeof(   __var11   )   __var__LINE__   = (   __var11   );
typeof(    __var211   )   __var2__LINE__   = (    __var211   );
__var__LINE__  >  __var2__LINE__  ?  __var2__LINE__  :  __var__LINE__  ; })
, 12);
}
[acme@brinquedo __attribute__]$

- Arnaldo