René Scharfe <> writes:

>> You can hack around it by passing a wrapper callback that flips the
>> arguments. Since we have a "void *" data pointer, that would point to a
>> struct holding the "real" callback and chaining to the original data
>> pointer.
>> It does incur the cost of an extra level of indirection for each
>> comparison, though (not just for each qsort call).
> Indeed.  We'd need a perf test to measure that overhead before we
> could determine if that's a problem, though.

I agree.  Hopefully it won't be too much cost.

>> You could do it as zero-cost if you were willing to turn the comparison
>> function definition into a macro.
> Ugh.  That either requires changing the signature of qsort_s() based
> on the underlying native function as well, or using a void pointer to
> pass the comparison function, no?  Let's not do that, at least not
> without a good reason.

Let's not go there.  It may be zero runtime cost, but the cognitive
cost for people who need to code the comparison callback using the
macro is high.

Reply via email to