On Sun, Dec 08, 2013 at 11:44:28PM +0100, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote: > > I have done it by having the original, non-_r functions provide a > > thunk for the comparison function, as this is least invasive. If we > > think this is too expensive, an alternative is generating a union of > > function pointers and making tests at the call sites; another option > > is to duplicate the code (hopefully with cpp rather than C&P) but that > > seems like a bad plan. > > I'd prefer to not have another indirect call. The only difference > is the definition and expanding a CMP macro differently?
Yes. But I'd rather not duplicate the code... -- David A. Holland dholl...@netbsd.org