Cliff Woolley wrote:
And yes, s_next *is* less than s_end. So the question is: why doesn't s_next get incremented?
(gdb) p *s_next $3 = -71 '' (gdb) p shift[*s_next] $4 = 0
Ah. Oops.
(Note that -71 is a non-printable superscript 1 or something.)
Perhaps s_next needs to be unsigned?
Thanks for catching that. I've just committed a change to make it unsigned.
--Brian
