2016年9月10日土曜日 22時59分53秒 UTC+9 Bram Moolenaar: > 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 -- b...@moolenaar.net -- 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 ///
Overflow causes a undefined behavior, therefore, in C spec, checking "after overflow occurring actually" does not work. But, > I think the current check should work. in practical, that may be so... I want to withdraw once and think again. -- -- 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 vim_dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
