From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <eggert@cs.ucla.edu>
Received: from zimbra.cs.ucla.edu (zimbra.cs.ucla.edu [131.179.128.68])
 by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1006D3833024
 for <libc-alpha@sourceware.org>; Wed, 12 May 2021 22:39:26 +0000 (GMT)
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 1006D3833024
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org;
 dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=cs.ucla.edu
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org;
 spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=eggert@cs.ucla.edu
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by zimbra.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70AA11600EB;
 Wed, 12 May 2021 15:39:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zimbra.cs.ucla.edu ([127.0.0.1])
 by localhost (zimbra.cs.ucla.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10032)
 with ESMTP id O8HXpF1ogtcs; Wed, 12 May 2021 15:39:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by zimbra.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id C42D6160102;
 Wed, 12 May 2021 15:39:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at zimbra.cs.ucla.edu
Received: from zimbra.cs.ucla.edu ([127.0.0.1])
 by localhost (zimbra.cs.ucla.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026)
 with ESMTP id HcM1tCIVmqc6; Wed, 12 May 2021 15:39:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.9] (cpe-172-91-119-151.socal.res.rr.com
 [172.91.119.151])
 by zimbra.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9B79D1600EB;
 Wed, 12 May 2021 15:39:24 -0700 (PDT)
To: "Alejandro Colomar (man-pages)" <alx.manpages@gmail.com>,
 mtk.manpages@gmail.com
Cc: linux-man@vger.kernel.org, libc-alpha@sourceware.org
References: <20210512204311.19399-1-alx.manpages@gmail.com>
 <ca33b912-2273-b1d0-57b8-b94a19822bfd@cs.ucla.edu>
 <b09b67a5-2006-62b7-13fc-1930b34e848b@gmail.com>
From: Paul Eggert <eggert@cs.ucla.edu>
Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department
Subject: Re: [PATCH] MAX.3, MIN.3: New page (and link page) to document MAX()
 and MIN()
Message-ID: <688adf87-e108-b4dd-66dd-ae9c4d7afdf8@cs.ucla.edu>
Date: Wed, 12 May 2021 15:39:24 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.8.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <b09b67a5-2006-62b7-13fc-1930b34e848b@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, KAM_DMARC_STATUS,
 NICE_REPLY_A, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,
 TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on
 server2.sourceware.org
X-BeenThere: libc-alpha@sourceware.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Libc-alpha mailing list <libc-alpha.sourceware.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://sourceware.org/mailman/options/libc-alpha>,
 <mailto:libc-alpha-request@sourceware.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://sourceware.org/pipermail/libc-alpha/>
List-Post: <mailto:libc-alpha@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:libc-alpha-request@sourceware.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://sourceware.org/mailman/listinfo/libc-alpha>,
 <mailto:libc-alpha-request@sourceware.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 May 2021 22:39:27 -0000

On 5/12/21 3:32 PM, Alejandro Colomar (man-pages) wrote:
> In which case they might not be evaluated at all?  I'm curious.
> Maybe if one of the arguments is literal NAN and the implementation
> raises an exception for it?

Or, one argument of MIN might be negative and the other might be=20
unsigned short. In that case, the unsigned short argument need not be=20
evaluated at all. Admittedly not something we'd be likely to optimize=20
for, but the documentation shouldn't preclude such optimization.