GitLab

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--) .

Apparently a line longer than 255 chars was spotted in the wild:
http://serverfault.com/questions/577939/linux-ps-htop-show-processes-running-for-hundreds-or-thousands-of-days-though-h#comment676098_577939

Read OOM data only if column is enabled.
Make sort ordering more consistent. Closes #182.

This is a work-in-progress, code is currently broken.
(Some actions, and notably, the header, are missing.)