On Tue, 13 Jun 2023 20:08:08 +0300 Andy Shevchenko andy.shevchenko@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 13, 2023 at 11:00 AM Herve Codina herve.codina@bootlin.com wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jun 2023 17:10:40 +0300 Andy Shevchenko andy.shevchenko@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 12, 2023 at 3:30 PM Herve Codina herve.codina@bootlin.com wrote:
Introduce min_array() (resp max_array()) in order to get the minimal (resp maximum) of values present in an array.
Some comments below, after addressing them, Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko andy.shevchenko@gmail.com
...
typeof(array) __array = (array); \We have __must_be_array()
Using __must_be_array() will lead to some failure. Indeed, we can have: --- 8< --- int *buff ... min = min_array(buff, nb_item); --- 8< ---
In this case, __must_be_array() will report that buff is not an array.
Oh, I missed that.
To avoid any confusion, what do you think if I renamed {min,max}_array() to {min,max}_buffer() and replace __array by __buff and use *(__buff + xxx) instead of array[xxx] in the macro.
But functionally it's still against an array.
I would stick with "array" in the name, but add a comment why __must_be_array() is not used. If we need a stricter variant, we may add a new wrapper with that check. That said, I think we can use __array[0] and similar indexed accesses.
Right, I will provide an updated version on the next iteration.
Thanks for your feedback. Hervé