Thomas Dahlmann wrote:
>
> The loop is for reading dwords only, so "i < bytes / UDC_DWORD_BYTES" cuts
> off remaining 1,2 or 3 bytes which are handled by the next loop.
> But you are right, incrementing by 4 may look better, as
>
> for (i = 0; i < bytes - bytes % UDC_DWORD_BYTES; i+=4) {
for (i = 0; i <= bytes - UDC_DWORD_BYTES; i += 4) {
?
David Vrabel
