On Mon, Nov 24, 2003 at 05:13:08PM -0800, David Schultz wrote:
+> On Mon, Nov 24, 2003, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
+> > If one is using strictly defined types as uint8_t, uint16_t, int32_t, etc.
+> > those macros are helpful IMHO, because futher value size changes does not
+> > affects code for byt
David Schultz writes:
> > I'm not sure if dedicated epanic() is the best way to implement out-of-rang
> e
> > errors prevention - the more handy solution should cause compile error.
>
> See CTASSERT.
There is an extremely limited number of sizes that are possible here,
even with weird/theoretical
On Mon, Nov 24, 2003, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
> If one is using strictly defined types as uint8_t, uint16_t, int32_t, etc.
> those macros are helpful IMHO, because futher value size changes does not
> affects code for byte order managing. This also does not hit perfromance,
> because this should
stems Programmer/Administrator http://garage.freebsd.pl
Am I Evil? Yes, I Am! http://cerber.sourceforge.net
--- endian.h.orig Sat Nov 22 13:15:40 2003
+++ endian.hMon Nov 24 10:57:02 2003
@@ -49,6 +49,46 @@
#endif
/*
+ * Size-independent byte order swapping func
4 matches
Mail list logo