Reasoning:
- implementation was unsound -- broke down when I added a fairly
basic macro definition expanding to a struct initializer in a *.c
file.
- made it way too easy (e.g. via otherwise totally innocuous git
commands) to end up with timestamps such that it always ran
MakeHeader.py but never used its output, leading to overbuild noise
when running what should be a null 'make'.
- but mostly: it's just an awkward way of dealing with C code.
Specifically, Platform_signals[] and Platform_numberOfSignals. Both are
not supposed to be mutable. Marking them 'const' puts them into rodata
sections in binary. And for Platform_numberOfSignals, this aids
optimization (aids only Link Time Optimization for now). :)
Signed-off-by: Kang-Che Sung <explorer09@gmail.com>
With the CLAMP macro replacing the combination of MIN and MAX, we will
have at least two advantages:
1. It's more obvious semantically.
2. There are no more mixes of confusing uses like MIN(MAX(a,b),c) and
MAX(MIN(a,b),c) and MIN(a,MAX(b,c)) appearing everywhere. We unify
the 'clamping' with a single macro.
Note that the behavior of this CLAMP macro is different from
the combination `MAX(low,MIN(x,high))`.
* This CLAMP macro expands to two comparisons instead of three from
MAX and MIN combination. In theory, this makes the code slightly
smaller, in case that (low) or (high) or both are computed at
runtime, so that compilers cannot optimize them. (The third
comparison will matter if (low)>(high); see below.)
* CLAMP has a side effect, that if (low)>(high) it will produce weird
results. Unlike MIN & MAX which will force either (low) or (high) to
win. No assertion of ((low)<=(high)) is done in this macro, for now.
This CLAMP macro is implemented like described in glib
<http://developer.gnome.org/glib/stable/glib-Standard-Macros.html>
and does not handle weird uses like CLAMP(a++, low++, high--) .
Zev Weiss