Re: macro conflict

[Magnus Naeslund]

From: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> Without digging through the archives to see if this has already
> been suggested (if so, I apologize), why can't the following be done:
>
> min(x,y) = ({typeof((x)) __x=(x), __y=(y); (__x < __y) ? __x : __y})
>
> That gets you the correct "evaluate the args once" semantics and gives
> you control over typing (the comparison is done in the type of the
> first argument) and we don't have to change a zillion drivers.
>
> (typeof() is a gcc extension.)
>

But then again, how do you know it's the type of x we want, maybe we want
type of y, that is and signed char (not an int like x).
Talk about hidden buffer overflow stuff :)

Magnus

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
 Programmer/Networker [|] Magnus Naeslund
 PGP Key: http://www.genline.nu/mag_pgp.txt
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-