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