From: Groepaz (groepaz_at_gmx.net)
Date: 2003-10-10 05:50:37
On Thursday 09 October 2003 20:27, Groepaz wrote: > On Thursday 09 October 2003 19:28, Ullrich von Bassewitz wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 09, 2003 at 02:43:10AM +0200, Groepaz wrote: > > > nice impact this "fix" has :=) the originally reported bug is indeed > > > fixed now, but in turn all the other signed-comparison tests dont > > > report "failed" - they *crash* :=P stack problem somewhere? :) > > > > Sorry, but I cannot reproduce that here. Can you send me a piece of code > > that crashes the compiler on your machine? > > ok, i'll try to isolate the piece of code that fails tonite... so here it is ... :=) this code loops forever and displays a sprite here (magic :)) :=P gpz ps: i think all those crashes are related to critical boundary conditions like in this snippet...maybe also also a problem with interpreting things like "-0x7f" correctly (its used all over the place in these tests), although changing it into "-127" doesnt fix it here. --- signed char char0 = 0; void c_char_lt_lit1(unsigned char expected_result) { if(char0 < -0x7f) /* this comparison appearently contains the bug */ { /* something :) */ } } void main(void) { for(char0=-0x7f; char0 != -1; ++char0) { c_char_lt_lit1(0x1e); } } ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 : 2003-10-10 05:56:21 CEST