Thread overview
dmc internal error cgcod 2347
Sep 29, 2002
Laurentiu Pancescu
Sep 29, 2002
Laurentiu Pancescu
Sep 30, 2002
Walter
Sep 30, 2002
Laurentiu Pancescu
Oct 01, 2002
Laurentiu Pancescu
Oct 01, 2002
Walter
Oct 03, 2002
Walter
Oct 03, 2002
Laurentiu Pancescu
Oct 05, 2002
Mark Evans
September 29, 2002
I got a cgcod 2347 internal error during compilation of rtpacket.c, from SpeakFreely source (www.speakfreely.org).  The problem seems to be caused by:

int i, j, k;
for(i=j=k = 0; i < 100; i++)
{
	if ((k & 3) != 2  && ((i % 580) != 579)) {
	        /* if j++ is replaced with k++, error goes away */
		sb.buffer.buffer_val[j++] = 1;
	}
	k = (k + 1) % 11;
}

Unfortunately, when I make a standalone program, using similar loop, the  internal error won't show up!  :(((  If you want (you==Walter Bright :), I can put together a small archive with only the necessary files to compile rtpacket.c.

Regards,
  Laurentiu

September 29, 2002
I forgot to mention this happens only with "-o+all"...

Laurentiu

Laurentiu Pancescu wrote:
> I got a cgcod 2347 internal error during compilation of rtpacket.c, from SpeakFreely source (www.speakfreely.org).  The problem seems to be caused by:
> 
> int i, j, k;
> for(i=j=k = 0; i < 100; i++)
> {
>     if ((k & 3) != 2  && ((i % 580) != 579)) {
>             /* if j++ is replaced with k++, error goes away */
>         sb.buffer.buffer_val[j++] = 1;
>     }
>     k = (k + 1) % 11;
> }
> 
> Unfortunately, when I make a standalone program, using similar loop, the  internal error won't show up!  :(((  If you want (you==Walter Bright :), I can put together a small archive with only the necessary files to compile rtpacket.c.
> 
> Regards,
>   Laurentiu
> 


September 30, 2002
Yes, please, I need the reproducible archive. -Walter

"Laurentiu Pancescu" <plaur@crosswinds.net> wrote in message news:3D977264.1050202@crosswinds.net...
> I forgot to mention this happens only with "-o+all"...
>
> Laurentiu
>
> Laurentiu Pancescu wrote:
> > I got a cgcod 2347 internal error during compilation of rtpacket.c, from SpeakFreely source (www.speakfreely.org).  The problem seems to be caused by:
> >
> > int i, j, k;
> > for(i=j=k = 0; i < 100; i++)
> > {
> >     if ((k & 3) != 2  && ((i % 580) != 579)) {
> >             /* if j++ is replaced with k++, error goes away */
> >         sb.buffer.buffer_val[j++] = 1;
> >     }
> >     k = (k + 1) % 11;
> > }
> >
> > Unfortunately, when I make a standalone program, using similar loop, the
> >  internal error won't show up!  :(((  If you want (you==Walter Bright
> > :), I can put together a small archive with only the necessary files to
> > compile rtpacket.c.
> >
> > Regards,
> >   Laurentiu
> >
>
>


September 30, 2002
Okay, I attached it.  The cgcod error only appears when compiled with "dmc -c -o -5 rtpacket.c".  Using different processor spec is okay (I tried with -3, -4, -6).

Thanks for your fast answer (DigitalMars has really good support!). Sorry for not being able to shrink the source, I'm really too tired - just got back from work...  :(

Regards,
   Laurentiu


Walter wrote:
> Yes, please, I need the reproducible archive. -Walter
> 



October 01, 2002
I could use -6 for the version I use.  Will code compiled with -6 also run on Pentium machines?  I mean PentiumMMX, not PentiumII or newer.

Laurentiu Pancescu wrote:
> Okay, I attached it.  The cgcod error only appears when compiled with "dmc -c -o -5 rtpacket.c".  Using different processor spec is okay (I tried with -3, -4, -6).
> 


October 01, 2002
Yes, it will work.

"Laurentiu Pancescu" <plaur@crosswinds.net> wrote in message news:3D99F0F7.5080804@crosswinds.net...
> I could use -6 for the version I use.  Will code compiled with -6 also run on Pentium machines?  I mean PentiumMMX, not PentiumII or newer.
>
> Laurentiu Pancescu wrote:
> > Okay, I attached it.  The cgcod error only appears when compiled with "dmc -c -o -5 rtpacket.c".  Using different processor spec is okay (I tried with -3, -4, -6).
> >
>
>


October 03, 2002
Ok, it's been fixed and a new beta posted. -Walter


October 03, 2002
I just tried, it works!  Thanks a lot!!!

Laurentiu

Walter wrote:
> Ok, it's been fixed and a new beta posted. -Walter
> 
> 


October 05, 2002
Walter when you post a new beta please post a note with some standard subject line and the version number.  New 8.30.3 beta say.

And then if you would, consolidate the changes/fixes in one place like the compiler release page.

I think it's good marketing even to do this for the most minor beta releases because it shows that the compiler is under very active development and the author tracks down minor bugs.  For which we all thank you,

Mark


In article <angspg$369$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Walter says...
>
>Ok, it's been fixed and a new beta posted. -Walter
>
>