[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
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?
Main Index |
Thread Index |