Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Serious FOR bug in latest dev build s1964
ivorget Wrote:It was undefined so it was implicitly defined as UBYTE. And yes it works fine if explicitly defined as UINTEGER.
So not so serious then but I still think it's a minor bug because the compiler is clearly using the FOR range to decide what implicit size n should have - shouldn't it switch to UINTEGER at 255 instead of 256 as it appears to do now?

OK, makes sense!

Although I suppose it gave you a warning telling you it was assuming UBYTE type for n. A compiler warning (usually) means the compiler is simply trying to guess how to fix the programmer's fault. For this reason, I would classify this case as "room for improvement" in the compiler, not really as a bug Smile

Messages In This Thread

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)