[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <73144a81d75c477b9639872ed9f4cbf3@AcuMS.aculab.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2023 12:42:33 +0000
From: David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To: 'Herve Codina' <herve.codina@...tlin.com>
CC: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>,
Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>,
Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
Jaroslav Kysela <perex@...ex.cz>,
Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.com>,
"Kuninori Morimoto" <kuninori.morimoto.gx@...esas.com>,
"alsa-devel@...a-project.org" <alsa-devel@...a-project.org>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-iio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-iio@...r.kernel.org>,
Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>,
Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v4 07/13] minmax: Introduce {min,max}_array()
From: Herve Codina <herve.codina@...tlin.com>
> Sent: 16 June 2023 12:49
>
> Hi David,
>
> On Fri, 16 Jun 2023 09:08:22 +0000
> David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM> wrote:
>
> ...
>
> >
> > Just define two variables typeof(__array[0] + 0) one for an element
> > and one for the limit.
> > The just test (eg):
> > if (limit > item) limit = item;
> > finally cast the limit back to the original type.
> > The promotions of char/short to signed int won't matter.
> > There is no need for all the type-checking in min/max.
> >
> > Indeed, if min_t(type, a, b) is in anyway sane it should
> > expand to:
> > type _a = a, _b = b;
> > _a < _b ? _a : _b
> > without any of the checks that min() does.
>
> I finally move to use _Generic() in order to "unconstify" and avoid the
> integer promotion. With this done, no extra cast is needed and min()/max()
> are usable.
>
> The patch is available in the v5 series.
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kernel/20230615152631.224529-8-herve.codina@bootlin.com/
>
> Do you think the code present in the v5 series should be changed ?
> If so, can you give me your feedback on the v5 series ?
It seems horribly over-complicated just to get around the perverse
over-strong type checking that min/max do just to avoid sign
extension issues.
Maybe I ought to try getting a patch accepted that just checks
is_signed_type(typeof(x)) == is_signed_type(typeof(y))
instead of
typeof(x) == typeof(y)
Then worry about the valid signed v unsigned cases.
Indeed, since the array index can be assumed not to have side
effects you could use __cmp(x, y, op) directly.
No one has pointed out that __element should be __bound.
David
-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists