From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 21:37:43 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 21:37:33 -0400 Received: from scrub.xs4all.nl ([194.109.195.176]:50950 "EHLO scrub.xs4all.nl") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 21:37:15 -0400 Message-ID: <3B7C7235.1E09C034@linux-m68k.org> Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 03:24:05 +0200 From: Roman Zippel X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.8 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "David S. Miller" CC: aia21@cam.ac.uk, tpepper@vato.org, f5ibh@db0bm.ampr.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: 2.4.9 does not compile [PATCH] In-Reply-To: <20010816144109.A5094@cb.vato.org> <20010816.153151.74749641.davem@redhat.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20010816234350.00add710@pop.cus.cam.ac.uk> <20010816.163852.115909286.davem@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi, "David S. Miller" wrote: > 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. I have two problems with this: 1. They maybe think once about it, but are they doing it a second time? If the type of the argument is changed somewhere in the header, the min argument is easily missed, since... 2. This macro doesn't produce a warning like the typeof version does. The typeof version warns you about signed/unsigned compares, while an assignment gives no warning. bye, Roman