Re: qsort_r

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

On Sun, Dec 08, 2013 at 11:26:47PM +0000, David Laight 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?
 > 
 > Is just casting the function pointers safe in C (well in NetBSD)?
 > (with the calling conventions that Unix effectively requires)

No. Well, it is, but it's explicitly illegal C and I don't think we
should do it.

 > Can anything slightly less nasty be done with varags functions?

Don't immediately see how...

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