This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sourceware.org mailing list for the glibc project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
On Tuesday 11 June 2013 13:38:41 Roland McGrath wrote: > > On Monday 03 June 2013 15:12:05 Roland McGrath wrote: > > > I think we should be using inlines rather than macros any time we don't > > > have a strong reason to use macros. > > > > generally we don't do caps inlines though ? > > No, they would be lower-case names. > > > and using inlines means we now have to deal with types. the current one > > works with any size and does the right thing. if i wrote an inline, i'd > > have to pick a type (size_t? int? long? uint64_t? uintmax_t?) and then > > there'd be ugliness with signed vs unsigned, implicit casts, implicit > > truncation, overhead with casting up to larger than natural types (like > > 64bit on a 32bit system), etc... > > I assumed these were meant for addresses, so uintptr_t would always be > fine. the pointer ones could be by normalizing the return to void* (which generally shouldn't be a problem since this is C, not C++). the other ones, not really unfortunately. -mike
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |