Re: 2.4.9 does not compile [PATCH]

[Jeff Dike]

[e-mail] said:
> Really? Could you point out an example where using ... typeof(x) __x;
> typeof(y) __y; ... in the macros wouldn't work? - I just tried a few
> examples I thought wouldn't work (side-effects ones) but I was
> pleasantly  surprised to that gcc always produced the exact same
> assembler output for  both the 3 arg and the 2 arg + typeof macros. 

Try min(a, min(b, c)).  Look at the cpp expansion and notice all the variable
name clashes.

We went through this on #kernel one night, and Alan concocted some amazingly
gross unique identifier generators as a result.  To me, this looks like the 
best way to do this.

				Jeff