On Fri, 2008-02-15 at 22:53 +0000, Alan Cox wrote: > > > NAK. This is a sparse bug, fix sparse. > > > > Yes, fair enough, but that's not all the patch is about. > > > > 1) it's using a max_t and min_t to force the comparisons as shorts, why > > not just make it a static inline? > > Because max_t and min_t also force the comparsion types
Umm, maybe I'm missing something then, but how does the static inline not do this? > > > 2) the static inline is a little clearer about the intent here. > > Why ? OK, maybe not much clearer. But isn't the inline easier to see at a glance that it is returning a value constrained to be vmin <= v <= vmax I suppose the variable names make it clear, but the macro construction is (slightly) less obvious. > > > 3) the sparse warnings are entirely secondary (and technically correct > > when the macros expand, __x is shadowed) > > In a controlled manner. I guess you could make min and max use __x and __y > __mint __maxt...but I'm not proposing that. > > 4) I may be mistaken, but I thought then when something can be written > > as a static inline instead of a macro it was preferred. At least I've > > seen akpm say so, but I'll let him speak for himself (added to CC:) > > gcc still sometimes seems to optimise macros better than inlines. OK, I didn't realize that, any pointers? Harvey - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ide" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
