From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:52987) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cB7mS-0008Uh-2R for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 27 Nov 2016 17:18:40 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cB7mQ-0002oA-G7 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 27 Nov 2016 17:18:40 -0500 Received: from userp1040.oracle.com ([156.151.31.81]:22871) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cB7mQ-0002nX-7M for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 27 Nov 2016 17:18:38 -0500 Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2016 00:18:26 +0200 From: Yuval Shaia Message-ID: <20161127221825.GA19258@yuval-lap> References: <1480069886-11703-1-git-send-email-yuval.shaia@oracle.com> <20161127141004.GL8854@var.home> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20161127141004.GL8854@var.home> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] cutils: Define min and max marcos List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Samuel Thibault Cc: peter.maydell@linaro.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, jan.kiszka@siemens.com On Sun, Nov 27, 2016 at 03:10:04PM +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote: > Hello, > > Yuval Shaia, on Fri 25 Nov 2016 12:31:26 +0200, wrote: > > -#ifndef _WIN32 > > -#define min(x,y) ((x) < (y) ? (x) : (y)) > > -#define max(x,y) ((x) > (y) ? (x) : (y)) > > -#endif > > This has protection against _WIN32, I guess that was on purpose. I'm not following. Are you suggesting that this was there to prevent code from compiling when _WIN32 was define? > Perhaps qemu should avoid risking a clash with OS-provided min/max > macros, by renaming these to qemu_min/max? On MIN and MAX? I have noticed some other approach which was taken in osdep.h with ifdef, for example: 193 #ifndef ROUND_UP 194 #define ROUND_UP(n,d) (((n) + (d) - 1) & -(d)) 195 #endif > > Samuel