|[28 earlier articles]|
|Re: failure due to compiler? email@example.com (Lee Webber) (1996-07-23)|
|Re: failure due to compiler? firstname.lastname@example.org (Eric Hamilton) (1996-07-23)|
|Re: failure due to compiler? email@example.com (1996-07-23)|
|Re: failure due to compiler? firstname.lastname@example.org (1996-07-24)|
|Re: failure due to compiler? email@example.com (1996-07-26)|
|Re: failure due to compiler? firstname.lastname@example.org (1996-07-31)|
|Re: failure due to compiler? email@example.com (1996-07-31)|
|From:||firstname.lastname@example.org (Feliks Kluzniak)|
|Date:||31 Jul 1996 19:27:20 -0400|
|Organization:||Carlstedt Research & Technology AB|
|References:||96-07-041 96-07-056 96-07-064 96-07-079|
My favourite compiler error was the one that allowed a Pascal FOR loop to run
I was initialising a character translation table with
for c := chr( 0 ) to chr( 255 ) do ...
and the compiler was clever enough to use a single-byte counter (this was
on a PDP-11). The successor of 255 was, of course, 0, so the loop termination
test in the object code never fired.
This was OMSI Pascal, otherwise an excellent compiler. Happened in the early
[This thread is getting kind of long, I'm going to close it down unless
something really exotic shows up. -John]
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.