4 ms·
This is not the problem. You are assuming still using &, which is very obviously incorrect with a very obvious fix (%5) which is still wrong because of behavio
by dllthomas 10y ago
This is not the problem.
You are assuming still using &, which is very obviously incorrect with a very obvious fix (%5) which is still wrong because of behavior at overflow.
- falcolas 10y agoI'm answering the specific problem posed by the OP, given his other comments in this thread. [EDIT] Resolved internal concerns about size calculations.
- dllthomas 10y agoYou might have misread the OP. He's not asking why using & for the mask requires a 2^n sized buffer. He's asking why bother using & when it imposes these additional constraints on us. A part of the answer is that the constraints are already there with this approach, even if you pick a different function for masking than f(i,n) = i & (n - 1) -- which point OP only recently understood due to a misreading of the article.