From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 28 Aug 2001 16:07:00 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 28 Aug 2001 16:06:50 -0400 Received: from otter.mbay.net ([206.40.79.2]:18182 "EHLO otter.mbay.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id convert rfc822-to-8bit; Tue, 28 Aug 2001 16:06:45 -0400 From: jalvo@mbay.net (John Alvord) To: Alan Cox Cc: torvalds@transmeta.com (Linus Torvalds), viro@math.psu.edu (Alexander Viro), linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [IDEA+RFC] Possible solution for min()/max() war Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 20:06:23 GMT Message-ID: <3b8bf989.1927813@mail.mbay.net> In-Reply-To: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 28 Aug 2001 12:10:12 +0100 (BST), Alan Cox wrote: >> Or, with the 2.4.9 approach, it's just a single macro (well, and another >> one for "max()"). And when somebody needs a new type, he doesn't have to >> worry about creating a new instantiation of the macro. > >The unfortunate thing is that its min and max as opposed to typed_min and >typed_max (with min/max set up to error), since its now a nightmare to >maintain compatibility between two allegedly stable releases of the same >kernel, as well as with 2.2 > >Had it been typed_min(a,b,c) then 2.2 could have stayed compatible and the >glue would have been simple Does the new min/max definitions hurt portability to and from Linux? john alvord