Re: qsort_r

[David Holland <dholland-tech%netbsd.org@localhost>]

On Sun, Dec 08, 2013 at 11:44:28PM +0100, Joerg Sonnenberger 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?

Yes. But I'd rather not duplicate the code...

-- 
David A. Holland
dholland%netbsd.org@localhost