Hi Shimoda-san,

> +		if (re - 1 - rs + 1 > tap_cnt) {	// "if (re - rs > tap_cnt)" is more better?

Oops, looks really like an off-by-one error on my side :( Yes, I think
're - rs' is good here...

> +			tap_end = re - 1;

... plain 'tap_end = re;' here ...

> +			tap_start = rs;
> +			tap_cnt = tap_end - tap_start + 1;

... and drop the '+ 1' here.

I will double check, and resend soon.

Thank you very much!

   Wolfram