On Wed, Jun 14, 2023 at 12:42 PM Herve Codina <herve.codina@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 14 Jun 2023 12:02:57 +0300 > Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 14, 2023 at 10:49 AM Herve Codina <herve.codina@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: ... > > > + typeof(__array[0] + 0) __element = __array[--__len]; \ > > > > Do we need the ' + 0' part? > > Yes. > > __array can be an array of const items and it is legitimate to get the > minimum value from const items. > > typeof(__array[0]) keeps the const qualifier but we need to assign __element > in the loop. > One way to drop the const qualifier is to get the type from a rvalue computed > from __array[0]. This rvalue has to have the exact same type with only the const > dropped. > '__array[0] + 0' was a perfect canditate. Seems like this also deserves a comment. But if the series is accepted as is, it may be done as a follow up. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
