On Do, 2015-06-18 at 06:45 -0400, Frediano Ziglio wrote: > > On Do, 2015-06-18 at 05:58 -0400, Frediano Ziglio wrote: > > > For the same reason there is the v >= l test. > > > The v >= l test state that the value can be out of range so it not always > > > a > > > constant in the range. > > > Adding the v < 0 check for every invalid value. As these are executed only > > > for logging should not be a performance penalty. > > > I also hope the compiler is able to optimize > > > > > > if (v < 0 || v >= l) > > > > > > with > > > > > > if ((unsigned) v >= l) > > > > Just make v explicitly unsigned? > > > > cheers, > > Gerd > > > > Do you mean in the prototype?
Yes. > Well, this could have side effect due to different conversions so is not a so > trivial patch. What side effects? I don't expect any for in-range values, and how exactly we catch out-of-range values doesn't really matter ... cheers, Gerd