On Wed Aug 22 10:51:02 EDT 2012, cinap_len...@gmx.de wrote: > this is interesting. the p != qp->curdest check would just > support my point because it effectively checks if p is valid. > if p would be at qp->curdest, it would be past the last valid > entry and hence invalid so its not written.
if that's true, then this could be some of the most convoluted code we've got. - erik
