From: groepaz (groepaz_at_gmx.net)
Date: 2002-09-19 01:10:34
Hello Ullrich, >> while brosing throug a couple of standard references (bzw can you >> suggest some decent url? ;=P too much outdated and/or unconfirmed >> stuff around it seems ;=P) i noticed the following.... >> >> "Note that assert must expand to a void expression, so the more >> obvious if-statement does not suffice as a definition of >> assert." UvB> Admittedly, it took some time, but it is fixed now:-) UvB> I've added another change that allows the ?: operator to take two arguments of UvB> type void (which was not possible before). very cool.... i've used that feature in a couple of my own macros, would be great if those would work like intended ;=) UvB> More seriously: No. cc65 is not smart enough to distinguish between UvB> intentional and non intentional cases where the result of an expression is UvB> constant. Even gcc gets this wrong sometimes... uh? say what? could you show a construct that is problematic even in gcc? (3.1 fixed loads of that kinda things btw ;=P) -- Best regards, groepaz mailto:groepaz_at_gmx.net ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list send mail to majordomo_at_musoftware.de with the string "unsubscribe cc65" in the body(!) of the mail.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : 2002-09-19 01:11:40 CEST