Re: Size-independent byte order swapping functions.

From: David Schultz (das_at_FreeBSD.ORG)
Date: 11/25/03

  • Next message: Poul-Henning Kamp: "Re: "secure" file flag?" 
    Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 17:13:08 -0800
To: Pawel Jakub Dawidek <nick@garage.freebsd.pl>

    On Mon, Nov 24, 2003, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
    > If one is using strictly defined types as uint8_t, uint16_t, int32_t, etc.
    > those macros are helpful IMHO, because futher value size changes does not
    > affects code for byte order managing. This also does not hit perfromance,
    > because this should be resolved at compile-time.

    Cool, looks useful.

    > I'm not sure if dedicated epanic() is the best way to implement out-of-range
    > errors prevention - the more handy solution should cause compile error.

    See CTASSERT.
    _______________________________________________
    freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
    http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
    To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"

  • Next message: Poul-Henning Kamp: "Re: "secure" file flag?"

    Relevant Pages

    • Re: Size-independent byte order swapping functions.
      ... +>> affects code for byte order managing. ... +>> errors prevention - the more handy solution should cause compile error. ... but you can't use CTASSERT() inside. ...
      (freebsd-hackers)
    • Size-independent byte order swapping functions.
      ... Macros in attached patch are designed for doing life a little easier. ... affects code for byte order managing. ... errors prevention - the more handy solution should cause compile error. ...
      (freebsd-hackers)