2009/6/25 Jonas Maebe <jonas.ma...@elis.ugent.be>: > > On 25 Jun 2009, at 20:14, Inoussa OUEDRAOGO wrote: > >> 2009/6/25 Jonas Maebe <jonas.ma...@elis.ugent.be>: >>> >>> On 25 Jun 2009, at 19:58, Ruediger Hahn wrote: >>> >>>> I am just wondering if this is a bug: Can anyone tell me why I get a >>>> "range check error while evaluating constants" with the following simple >>>> program: >>>> >>>> <code> >>>> program Project1; >>>> >>>> const >>>> MyVar : UInt64 = $FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF; // 4 x 2 Bytes or 4 Words >>>> >>>> begin >>>> end. >>>> </code> >>> >>> The reason is that $FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF is parsed as an int64 by FPC. As a >>> result it equals -1, and -1 is not a valid uint64 value. >> >> This warning is actually misleading > > Not warning would be misleading (and wrong). > >> as it makes one doubtfull about >> the correctness of the program( In my case I debugged the program to >> be sure that the "good" value was assigned). > > When it's changed, you will get the warning/error when assigning this value > to an int64 and then those cases can be debugged.
and that seems more accurate to me > to an int64 and then those cases can be debugged. It's the same when we > changed from parsing $80000000-$FFFFFFFF as a longint to parsing it as a > cardinal. Suddenly a whole bunch of code no longer worked correctly anymore > then either, and we got a bunch of questions why code no longer compiled or > produced warnings. IMHO warnings/errors should be reported as one is actually in a "out of range" case. But if some code depends on this ( such as a bit mask ) changing the behavior of the compiler can effectively be harmfull. I think that should be up to the people (ab)using the parser this way to correct their code by doing a explicit typecast. -- Inoussa O. _______________________________________________ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
