Raphael,
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 08:46:58PM +0100, Raphael Neider wrote:
> I had a look at the problem. Actually,
[code that produces a broken long2fs]
> is equivalent to
[code that coincidentally works]
> and the latter saves code for one comparison. So changing that
> *should* not break/heal anything.
Yes, you are right of course. Thanks for investigating further, I read
the remainder of your post with great interest. Unfortunately this is a
little bit too much for me in the moment, I wont be able to find the
time to acquire the necessary background knowledge to come up with a
solution for it. So I'll have to leave it like this, but I hope
discovering the problem and documenting it here helped a bit.
[...]
> As stated above, the implementations are semantically equivalent
> (unless I am mistaken) and need not be touched except for efficiency,
> as the while(){} construct seems to yield slightly more compact code.
Yes, I agree that this bug should not be hidden. I hope other users find
these emails in case they use the function themselves, until this is
fixed properly. Is there an issue tracker where this should be filed?
Kind regards,
//Daniel
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Everyone hates slow websites. So do we.
Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics
Download AppDynamics Lite for free today:
http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_feb
_______________________________________________
Sdcc-user mailing list
Sdcc-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sdcc-user
