On Tue, 28 Aug 2001 12:10:12 +0100 (BST), Alan Cox
<alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:
>> Or, with the 2.4.9 approach, it's just a single macro (well, and another
>> one for "max()"). And when somebody needs a new type, he doesn't have to
>> worry about creating a new instantiation of the macro.
>
>The unfortunate thing is that its min and max as opposed to typed_min and
>typed_max (with min/max set up to error), since its now a nightmare to
>maintain compatibility between two allegedly stable releases of the same
>kernel, as well as with 2.2
>
>Had it been typed_min(a,b,c) then 2.2 could have stayed compatible and the
>glue would have been simple
Does the new min/max definitions hurt portability to and from Linux?
john alvord
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Aug 31 2001 - 21:00:31 EST