Thought I'd ask. Nothing lost. Just seeking a consensus on how to
address the problem.
Gareth
On 24/06/2019 05:41, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jun 2019, J. Gareth Moreton wrote:
Hi everyone,
So after a problem over at
https://bugs.freepascal.org/view.php?id=35753 that led to a change of
https://bugs.freepascal.org/view.php?id=35671 , it became apparent
that there may need to be better support for unbounded arrays in
record types - not open arrays, but unbounded ones.
[snip]
It's a lot to think about for sure, and is probably overengineering a
solution to a very niche problem (I personally can't think of where
one would use such constructs instead of something with a fixed-size
array or just having the header and open array stored separarely),
but is it worth discussing?
No. This *really* is overengineering.
If you declare what is clearly a dummy structure, then tricks will be
needed. Disabling range checks on such constructs and warnings is the
only sensible thing to do.
If you want to get rid of warnings, define it as
LOGPALETTE = record
palVersion : WORD;
palNumEntries : WORD;
palPalEntry : array[0..(MAXINT div sizeof(PALETTEENTRY)] of
PALETTEENTRY;
end;
Since you will always work through a getmem'ed memory block & pointer
anyway, and
all bets are off in that case. There is simply no point in letting the
compiler check anything extra since the construct is by definition
uncheckable.
Michael.
_______________________________________________
fpc-devel maillist - [email protected]
https://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________
fpc-devel maillist - [email protected]
https://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
