Gerhard Scholz wrote:
>
> ...
> > I'm not sure, at least
> >
> > > .L9:
> > > movw %dx,-12(%ebp)
> > > .Ll3:
> >
> > suggests that the target is not an integer, but instead is a (possibly
> > unsigned) word type. Please check again!
> ...
>
> This is the result of the compilation: "ppc386 to
Peter Vreman wrote:
Gerhard Scholz wrote:
The check for overflow is obviously implemented different in 2.0.0 and
2.1.1
I'm not sure, at least
.L9:
movw %dx,-12(%ebp)
.Ll3:
suggests that the target is not an integer, but instead is a (possibly
unsigned) word type.
...
> I'm not sure, at least
>
> > .L9:
> > movw %dx,-12(%ebp)
> > .Ll3:
>
> suggests that the target is not an integer, but instead is a (possibly
> unsigned) word type. Please check again!
...
This is the result of the compilation: "ppc386 tord -al" (shortened of
course).
Since "MOVW" move
#x27;)
seems to be a little compiler "weakness".
Gerhard
- Original Message -
From: "Colin Western" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "FPC developers' list"
Sent: Monday, June 06, 2005 10:24 PM
Subject: Re: [fpc-devel] Bug 4004
> Gerhard Scholz wrote:
>
> Gerhard Scholz wrote:
>>
>> The check for overflow is obviously implemented different in 2.0.0 and
>> 2.1.1
>
> I'm not sure, at least
>
>> .L9:
>> movw %dx,-12(%ebp)
>> .Ll3:
>
> suggests that the target is not an integer, but instead is a (possibly
> unsigned) word type. Please check again
Gerhard Scholz wrote:
>
> The check for overflow is obviously implemented different in 2.0.0 and 2.1.1
I'm not sure, at least
> .L9:
> movw %dx,-12(%ebp)
> .Ll3:
suggests that the target is not an integer, but instead is a (possibly
unsigned) word type. Please check again!
> A solution wo
Gerhard Scholz wrote:
It seems that the compiler now sees a "ord(c)" to be a BYTE, and BYTE - BYTE
shall give a BYTE, and -1 is not in the range allowed for a BYTE.
Thanks for taking a look at this. I am reasonably sure that this
beheviour is wrong, (otherwise you could never take the diffe
nteresting,
since it contains a constant expression and is converted to " i := -1 " by
the compiler.
Greetings
gs
- Original Message -
From: "Colin Western" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "FPC developers' list"
Sent: Saturday, June 04, 2005 1:38 PM
Subject:
Can I ask somebody to have another look at this bug - it was flagged
unreproducable on the web system, but I still get it from the current
svn as shown below.
(Note that the orginal report was on ppc but I have the same fault on i386)
Colin
$ fpc ord.pas
Free Pascal Compiler version 2.1.1 [2005
