From: Ullrich von Bassewitz (uz_at_musoftware.de)
Date: 2003-03-05 18:19:37
Hi!
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 03:40:49PM +0100, Groepaz wrote:
> char *a="bla";
> and
> char *a={"bla"};
>
> should be threatened as beeing exactly the same.... cc65 messed something up
> here last time i checked.
cc65 doesn't accept the latter, but it doesn't generate wrong code as with the
indexing. The strange thing (for me) is that the second initialization seems
to be valid C. Looks like curly braces are accepted around anything when
initializing, so even
unsigned a = { 3 };
is valid. I will have to look at it.
> ...ok, maybe i should check tonights snapshot and see if it passes the tests
> now? :O)
The bit operators should work now, the indexing problem is still not fixed. I
don't think this is really important, because the code is so weird.
Regards
Uz
--
Ullrich von Bassewitz uz_at_musoftware.de
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 : 2003-03-05 18:19:46 CET