On 1/5/19 7:48 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
> I'm fine keeping the name MIN/MAX for the common use, but we'd need a
> second pair, maybe named MIN_CONST/MAX_CONST, for use in contexts that
> require a constant (there, both arguments are evaluated twice because it
> is the naive implementation, but that
On 1/4/19 6:23 PM, Zoltán Kővágó wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have a similar patch in my queue[1]
>
Sorry for not noticing that thread.
>> #ifndef MIN
>> -#define MIN(a, b) (((a) < (b)) ? (a) : (b))
The old version is at least named in ALL_CAPS, to warn the user that it
is a macro and may have side
Hi,
I have a similar patch in my queue[1]
On 2019-01-04 16:39, Eric Blake wrote:
> Use the __auto_type keyword to make sure our min/max macros only
> evaluate their arguments once.
>
> Signed-off-by: Eric Blake
> ---
>
> RFC because __auto_type didn't exist until gcc 4.9, and I don't know
>
Patchew URL: https://patchew.org/QEMU/20190104153951.32306-1-ebl...@redhat.com/
Hi,
This series failed the docker-quick@centos7 build test. Please find the testing
commands and
their output below. If you have Docker installed, you can probably reproduce it
locally.
=== TEST SCRIPT BEGIN ===
Use the __auto_type keyword to make sure our min/max macros only
evaluate their arguments once.
Signed-off-by: Eric Blake
---
RFC because __auto_type didn't exist until gcc 4.9, and I don't know
which clang version introduced it (other than that it went in
during 2015:
