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]