On 08/03/2017 10:23 AM, Alexander Monakov wrote: > On Thu, 3 Aug 2017, Jakub Jelinek wrote: >> Do we really need to rename and poison anything? qsort () in the source is >> something that is most obvious to developers, so trying to force them to use >> something different will just mean extra thing to learn. > > Yep, I'd prefer to have a solution that keeps C-style qsort invocations as-is. Revisiting, I'm in agreement with you.
> >> The _5th macro isn't that bad either, appart from using reserved namespace >> identifiers (it really should be something like qsort_5th and the arguments >> shouldn't start with underscores). > > I didn't understand what Jeff found "ugly" about it; I wonder what epithets > would be applied then to more, ahem, unusual parts of GCC. I doubt anyone would want to hear what I might say about other code. I'm sure I wouldn't want my kids reading how I might refer to certain parts of GCC. jeff
