Also sprach Dan Aloni:
} On Wed, 6 Sep 2000, Peter Samuelson wrote:
}
} > Can someone explain this line from the VIA update?
} > #define FIT(v,min,max) (((v)>(max)?(max):(v))<(min)?(min):(v))
} > Barring side effects on the variables, it is equivalent to
} > #define FIT(v,min,max) ((v)<(min)?(min):(v))
} >
} > Why do I get the feeling that this was *not* the intent?
}
} Correct. The last v should be replaced with whatever that we got from
} (v)>(max)?(max):(v), like:
}
} #define FIT(v,min,max) (((v)>(max)?(max):(v))<(min)?(min):((v)>(max)?(max):(v)))
}
} Or perhaps this is a lot better:
}
} #define FIT(v,min,max) ((v)>(max)?(max):((v)<(min)?(min):(v)))
}
*pukes*
Wouldn't an inline'd function be much much more readable/maintainable??
-- || Bill Wendling wendling@ganymede.isdn.uiuc.edu - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Sep 07 2000 - 21:00:26 EST