On 2023-06-15 14:31:22, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
>
> On Tue, 13 Jun 2023 03:09:39 +0300, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> > Having a macro with 10 arguments doesn't seem like a good idea. It makes
> > it inherently harder to compare the actual structure values. Also this
> > leads to adding macros
On 2023-06-13 03:09:39, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> Having a macro with 10 arguments doesn't seem like a good idea. It makes
> it inherently harder to compare the actual structure values. Also this
> leads to adding macros covering varieties of the block.
>
> As it was previously discussed, inline
On Tue, 13 Jun 2023 03:09:39 +0300, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> Having a macro with 10 arguments doesn't seem like a good idea. It makes
> it inherently harder to compare the actual structure values. Also this
> leads to adding macros covering varieties of the block.
>
> As it was previously
Having a macro with 10 arguments doesn't seem like a good idea. It makes
it inherently harder to compare the actual structure values. Also this
leads to adding macros covering varieties of the block.
As it was previously discussed, inline all foo_BLK macros in order to
ease performing changes to
