On Wed, 23 Mar 2016 10:58:42 -0400, Michael McConville wrote: > I'm not sure whether avoiding incrementing here is an ideal move, but > this diff definitely works toward a local optimum. Namely, that error > check is technically meaningless because signed overflow is undefined. > > ok? Or would people prefer a solution that's robust to changing > *curpps's type?
Is there any reason for the counters to be signed? In general I don't think it makes much sense for counters to be signed. - todd
