On 05-Aug-06 01:53, Nicolas François wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Mar 01, 2005 at 09:10:13PM +0100, Andreas Jochens wrote:
> > @@ -670,7 +670,8 @@
> > */
> > FCode (p4_nofp_f_trunc_to_s)
> > {
> > - double h = *FSP++;
> > + double h = *FSP;
> > + SP = (double *)SP + 1;
> > *--SP = (p4cell) h;
> > }
>
> I'm wondering if this is not a typo. Shouldn't FSP be incremented instead
> of SP?
>
> Note: I've not tested it, I just mistyped a bug number and found this one.
> Please forgive me if it was intentional.
Hello,
thanks for looking at this. It is intentional because FSP is defined
as follows:
#define FSP ((double*) SP)
With gcc-4.0 'FSP' cannot be used as an lvalue in an increment because
of the type cast.
Regards
Andreas Jochens
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
