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 architectures like 256-bit machines. Doesn't it make sense just to presume that out-of-range is impossible, and recode for default "if (sizeof(x) == 1) return x;" (ignore syntax) ? M -- Mark Murray iumop ap!sdn w,I idlaH _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
