Re: qsort_r

[Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg%britannica.bec.de@localhost>]

On Sun, Dec 08, 2013 at 10:29:53PM +0000, David Holland wrote:
> I have done it by having the original, non-_r functions provide a
> thunk for the comparison function, as this is least invasive. If we
> think this is too expensive, an alternative is generating a union of
> function pointers and making tests at the call sites; another option
> is to duplicate the code (hopefully with cpp rather than C&P) but that
> seems like a bad plan.

I'd prefer to not have another indirect call. The only difference
is the definition and expanding a CMP macro differently?

Joerg