Am Di., 8. Jan. 2019, 23:49 hat Benito van der Zander
geschrieben:
> Hi,
>
> that reminds me of https://bugs.freepascal.org/view.php?id=34232
>
Yes, that falls into the same category...
Regards,
Sven
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepa
Hi,
that reminds me of https://bugs.freepascal.org/view.php?id=34232
Bye,
Benito
Am 08.01.19 um 23:28 schrieb Sven Barth via fpc-pascal:
Am Di., 8. Jan. 2019, 21:01 hat Ryan Joseph
mailto:r...@thealchemistguild.com>>
geschrieben:
I’ve made constants respect their proper definition now
Am Di., 8. Jan. 2019, 21:01 hat Ryan Joseph
geschrieben:
> I’ve made constants respect their proper definition now so we can do range
> checking but this broke some other things. For example there’s a range
> check error with static arrays now because “U” has a value of 0 so 0-1 = -1:
>
> type
>
I’ve made constants respect their proper definition now so we can do range
checking but this broke some other things. For example there’s a range check
error with static arrays now because “U” has a value of 0 so 0-1 = -1:
type
generic TList = record
list: array[0..U-1] o
On 08/01/19 17:34, Ryan Joseph wrote:
I made a little utility function which works in most cases but I don’t think
it’s correct and more importantly this function probably already exists in the
compiler.
function compare_orddef_by_range(param1,param2:torddef): boolean;
var
Yesterday I discovered I wasn’t doing proper range checking for ordinal
constants so for example, a generic with “const U: byte” could be specialized
as <1000>. We want ordinal constants to respect range checks right?
I made a little utility function which works in most cases but I don’t think
