Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 5 Jul 2001 18:21:17 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 5 Jul 2001 18:21:07 -0400 Received: from cs.columbia.edu ([128.59.16.20]:34503 "EHLO cs.columbia.edu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id convert rfc822-to-8bit; Thu, 5 Jul 2001 18:20:54 -0400 Message-Id: <200107052220.SAA07341@razor.cs.columbia.edu> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.1.1 10/15/1999 To: David Woodhouse cc: Hua Zhong , Davide Libenzi , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: linux/macros.h(new) and linux/list.h(mod) ... In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 05 Jul 2001 22:58:53 BST." <9004.994370333@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2001 18:20:54 -0400 From: Hua Zhong Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org -> From David Woodhouse : > > huaz@cs.columbia.edu said: > > Doesn't it add more overhead? I think using inline functions are > > much better. > > Why should it add overhead? Even the most na?ve compiler ought to generate > the same code, surely? I must admit I haven't looked hard at the output - > it didn't even occur to me that it might produce suboptimal code. right, gcc -O2 does produce the same code (but -O does not). > > > Yes you have to define it for different types (char, short, int, > > long, signed/unsigned). > > Unfortunately, this being C means that you can't call them all by the same > name. If I have to use unsigned_long_max(x,y) I'd rather type it out myself > :) Oops, I must be sleeping at that time :-) > -- > dwmw2 > > - 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/