1,though they all in backend, but they are at different level, upper is better than lower. if you can solve it in frontend ,that will be best.
2, i agree with you, no need to intro unsigned type, use the integer type is good enough.
P.S. I will be offline for a few days, don't wait for my reply.
issue-#209 Compiler trap in Real64 op ADR(x)
- Josef Templ
- Posts: 2047
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 6:50 am
Re: issue-#209 Compiler trap in Real64 op ADR(x)
I would like to propose to resume the voting on this issue.
The proposed fix is simple and looks plausible and I was not able to find a better alternative.
- Josef
The proposed fix is simple and looks plausible and I was not able to find a better alternative.
- Josef
Re: issue-#209 Compiler trap in Real64 op ADR(x)
You can refer to my solution:DevCPC486.ConvMoveJosef Templ wrote:I would like to propose to resume the voting on this issue.
The proposed fix is simple and looks plausible and I was not able to find a better alternative.
- Josef
Code: Select all
| Int32, Set, Pointer, ProcTyp:
IF xform = Char8 THEN CheckRange(y, 0, 255); FreeHi(y)
ELSIF xform = Char16 THEN CheckRange(y, 0, 65536);
ELSIF xform = Int8 THEN CheckRange(y, -128, 127); FreeHi(y)
ELSIF xform = Int16 THEN CheckRange(y, -32768, 32767)
ELSIF xform = Int64 THEN LoadLong(y, hint, stop)
ELSIF (y.form = Pointer)&(xform IN {Real32, Real64}) THEN y.form := Int32; (*add this line*)
END
Re: issue-#209 Compiler trap in Real64 op ADR(x)
Sorry - I have not been following the details here.
Is the topic ready for voting, or are there still problems to be resolved?
Is the topic ready for voting, or are there still problems to be resolved?