RE: [PATCH next v4 0/5] minmax: Relax type checks in min() and max().

[David Laight]

From: Linus Torvalds
> Sent: 20 January 2024 21:34
> 
> [ Going through some pending issues now that I've mostly emptied my pull queue ]
> 
> On Wed, 10 Jan 2024 at 14:58, David Laight <David.Laight@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > The first check in __types_ok() can go, the second one (with the '+ 0')
> > (added to promote char to int) includes the first one.
> 
> That turns out to not be true. An expression like
> 
>   min(u8, unsigned int)
> 
> is fine because the underlying types are compatible.
> 
> But the promotion to 'int' makes the first argument be a signed
> integer, and is no longer compatible with the second argument.

Yes, I realised that afterwards.

This version is much simpler though.

+/* Allow unsigned compares against non-negative signed constants. */
+#define __is_ok_unsigned(x) \
+       (!is_signed_type(typeof(x)) || (__is_constexpr(x) ? (x) >= 0 : 0))
+
+/* Check for signed after promoting unsigned char/short to int */
+#define __is_ok_signed(x) is_signed_type(typeof((x) + 0))
+
+/* Allow if both x and y are valid for either signed or unsigned compares. */
+#define __types_ok(x, y)                               \
+       ((__is_ok_signed(x) && __is_ok_signed(y)) ||    \
+        (__is_ok_unsigned(x) && __is_ok_unsigned(y)))

And _Statc_assert() only needs a compile-time constant, not
a constant expression - so no need for all the __builtin_choose_expr().

I'll post the actual patch series in a couple of days.

	David

-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)