apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Brian Pane <brian.p...@cnet.com>
Subject Re: Showstopper ... was: Tagged the tree
Date Thu, 09 Jan 2003 17:44:42 GMT
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:

>In that case... what about a trick (I believe) Ben Laurie taught us?
>Using a typedef for clarity:
>typedef void*(*apr_atomic_casptr_fn_t)(unsigned long* mem, unsigned long cmp, unsigned
long with);
>#define apr_atomic_casptr ((apr_atomic_casptr_fn_t)(atomic_cmpxchg))
>In this way, the arguments to apr_atomic_casptr will be evaluated in terms
>of the apr_atomic_casptr_fn_t declaration.
>This presumes the arguments exactly match the atomic_cmpxchg function, 
>with the exception of twos-compliment signedness.
>Make sense?

I like the typedef approach, but shouldn't it be

typedef void*(*apr_atomic_casptr_fn_t)(void** mem, const void *cmp, const void *with);

since casptr operates on pointers rather than ints?


View raw message