Re[2]: [cc65] glitch in "assert.h" ?

Date view Thread view Subject view

From: groepaz (
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 ;=P too much outdated and/or unconfirmed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,

To unsubscribe from the list send mail to with
the string "unsubscribe cc65" in the body(!) of the mail.

Date view Thread view Subject view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : 2002-09-19 01:11:40 CEST