#
a8a5c538 |
| 03-Sep-2018 |
riastradh <riastradh@NetBSD.org> |
Rename min/max -> uimin/uimax for better honesty.
These functions are defined on unsigned int. The generic name min/max should not silently truncate to 32 bits on 64-bit systems. This is purely a n
Rename min/max -> uimin/uimax for better honesty.
These functions are defined on unsigned int. The generic name min/max should not silently truncate to 32 bits on 64-bit systems. This is purely a name change -- no functional change intended.
HOWEVER! Some subsystems have
#define min(a, b) ((a) < (b) ? (a) : (b)) #define max(a, b) ((a) > (b) ? (a) : (b))
even though our standard name for that is MIN/MAX. Although these may invite multiple evaluation bugs, these do _not_ cause integer truncation.
To avoid `fixing' these cases, I first changed the name in libkern, and then compile-tested every file where min/max occurred in order to confirm that it failed -- and thus confirm that nothing shadowed min/max -- before changing it.
I have left a handful of bootloaders that are too annoying to compile-test, and some dead code:
cobalt ews4800mips hp300 hppa ia64 luna68k vax acorn32/if_ie.c (not included in any kernels) macppc/if_gm.c (superseded by gem(4))
It should be easy to fix the fallout once identified -- this way of doing things fails safe, and the goal here, after all, is to _avoid_ silent integer truncations, not introduce them.
Maybe one day we can reintroduce min/max as type-generic things that never silently truncate. But we should avoid doing that for a while, so that existing code has a chance to be detected by the compiler for conversion to uimin/uimax without changing the semantics until we can properly audit it all. (Who knows, maybe in some cases integer truncation is actually intended!)
show more ...
|