On Mon, Aug 18, 2003 at 10:23:49AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Forgive me, but I think your response is a bit patronizing. I'm not some > C/C++ "newbie" that doesn't understand "hard to explain" syntax. Before I > asked this question on the list, I asked other experts in our company, and > they agree that the idea of a while statement between the switch and before > the first case is invalid syntax. They are unsure of the intent of such > syntax, and think, even if supported, is obscure.
The intent is to jump into the middle of a while loop based on some saved state. I wanted the switch to be applied when entering the loop, to enter into some specific location rather than to enter at the beginning. Then it should just run the loop and ignore the switch. > This would require more typing. So, I'm asking, did you mean the first or > the second as far as functionality? I only want to know so that I can > modify the code and keep it in line with what you meant. It's neither. > For example, what if I use an 8-bit counter? Assuming an update of once > per second, that will wrap every 4 minutes.. However, if I use a 32-bit > vector, it would wrap in 136 years. However, if I were to use a free > running counter that is updated every 20ns (i.e. by a 50MHz clock), the > situation is drastically different. An 8-bit counter wraps every 5us. A > 32-bit counter wraps every 85 seconds. A 64-bit counter wraps every 11 > thousand years. The size of the counter is a design decision. Knowing if > the counter can wrap drives the size of the counter. I don't know the answer to that. I got the answer that you can use a counter from page 38 of http://csrc.nist.gov/cryptval/140-1/FIPS1401IG.pdf but it does not mention what it is allowed to wrap.
