It has indeed. I do fail to see why that was necessary though...
IMHO, it would have been more elegant to use the typeof construct provided
by gcc in the new macro instead of introducing a type parameter like this...
#define min(x,y) \
({ typeof(x) __x = (x); typeof(y) __y = (y); __x < __y ? __x: __y; })
Best regards,
Anton
-- "Nothing succeeds like success." - Alexandre Dumas-- Anton Altaparmakov <aia21 at cam.ac.uk> (replace at with @) Linux NTFS Maintainer / WWW: http://linux-ntfs.sf.net/ ICQ: 8561279 / WWW: http://www-stu.christs.cam.ac.uk/~aia21/- 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/