Ozaki Kiichi wrote:
> > ! if (++last_timer_id < 0)
> > ! /* Overflow! Might cause duplicates... */
> > ! last_timer_id = 0;
>
> Sorry, I realized this is not proper overflow detection in standard C.
> We had to check before increment.
>
> https://gist.github.com/ichizok/d9d220ba44e512a6b26d34c1bfc05711
Hmm, we don't use LONG_MAX anywhere currently. Not sure about
portability.
I think the current check should work. Another way would be:
prev_val = last_timer_id;
if ++last_timer_id <= prev_val)
last_timer_id = 0;
--
If evolution theories are correct, humans will soon grow a third
hand for operating the mouse.
/// Bram Moolenaar -- [email protected] -- http://www.Moolenaar.net \\\
/// sponsor Vim, vote for features -- http://www.Vim.org/sponsor/ \\\
\\\ an exciting new programming language -- http://www.Zimbu.org ///
\\\ help me help AIDS victims -- http://ICCF-Holland.org ///
--
--
You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist.
Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"vim_dev" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
