mirror of
https://github.com/shadps4-emu/ext-cryptopp.git
synced 2024-11-23 09:59:42 +00:00
Update documentation
This commit is contained in:
parent
e8b07b162f
commit
5de1089c8c
18
misc.h
18
misc.h
@ -103,14 +103,16 @@
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||
#if CRYPTOPP_DOXYGEN_PROCESSING
|
#if CRYPTOPP_DOXYGEN_PROCESSING
|
||||||
/// \brief The maximum value of a machine word
|
/// \brief The maximum value of a machine word
|
||||||
/// \details SIZE_MAX provides the maximum value of a machine word. The value is
|
/// \details <tt>SIZE_MAX</tt> provides the maximum value of a machine word. The value
|
||||||
/// 0xffffffff on 32-bit machines, and 0xffffffffffffffff on 64-bit machines.
|
/// is <tt>0xffffffff</tt> on 32-bit targets, and <tt>0xffffffffffffffff</tt> on 64-bit
|
||||||
/// Internally, SIZE_MAX is defined as __SIZE_MAX__ if __SIZE_MAX__ is defined. If not
|
/// targets.
|
||||||
/// defined, then SIZE_T_MAX is tried. If neither __SIZE_MAX__ nor SIZE_T_MAX is
|
/// \details If <tt>SIZE_MAX</tt> is not defined, then <tt>__SIZE_MAX__</tt> is used if
|
||||||
/// is defined, the library uses std::numeric_limits<size_t>::max(). The library
|
/// defined. If not defined, then <tt>SIZE_T_MAX</tt> is used if defined. If not defined,
|
||||||
/// prefers __SIZE_MAX__ because its a constexpr that is optimized well
|
/// then the library uses <tt>std::numeric_limits<size_t>::max()</tt>.
|
||||||
/// by all compilers. std::numeric_limits<size_t>::max() is not always a constexpr,
|
/// \details The library prefers <tt>__SIZE_MAX__</tt> or <tt>__SIZE_T_MAX__</tt> because
|
||||||
/// and it is not always optimized well.
|
/// they are effectively <tt>constexpr</tt> that is optimized well by all compilers.
|
||||||
|
/// <tt>std::numeric_limits<size_t>::max()</tt> is not always a <tt>constexpr</tt>, and
|
||||||
|
/// it is not always optimized well.
|
||||||
# define SIZE_MAX ...
|
# define SIZE_MAX ...
|
||||||
#else
|
#else
|
||||||
// Its amazing portability problems still plague this simple concept in 2015.
|
// Its amazing portability problems still plague this simple concept in 2015.
|
||||||
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user