On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 16:54:05 BST, William Gallafent said:

> Er, consider the case of count == 1. Fenceposts can be dangerous things.

Amen, given the original code and the first attempt to fix it.  I was actually
trolling for "accidentally correct" versus "intentionally correct".

/Valdis (who has posted "convince me the code is right THIS time"  waay too
many times on waaay too many lists already today - including one count-the-on-bits
scheme that only worked for an all-zeros input.. ;)