sjk@utastro.UUCP (Scot Kleinman) (09/15/88)
I think I have a uncovered a bug in my version of Aztec C 3.60a. I'm in a function, have just set a variable I am going to return, but am entering a for loop that modifies some other variables. At the end of the for loop, my original variable (the one I first set and am going to return) has been changed. I put a printf in the loop and found that the change occurs only on the last loop iteration. I would include the code, but I thought I heard that there is a 3.60b version out. I have not heard about this from Manx, but if it is indeed out, maybe they already cured the bug. If this release is not out, I can post my code (it is short) and would like to know if others have had similar problems and/or have reported it to Manx Techs. If it is out, let me know, too, so I can contact Manx for the upgrade. Thanks much Scot sjk@astro.as.utexas.edu Aren't we all having fun?
jones@ingr.UUCP (Mark Jones) (09/16/88)
In article <3111@utastro.UUCP>, sjk@utastro.UUCP (Scot Kleinman) writes: > > I think I have a uncovered a bug in my version of Aztec C 3.60a. > I'm in a function, have just set a variable I am going to return, but am > entering a for loop that modifies some other variables. At the end of the > for loop, my original variable (the one I first set and am going to return) > has been changed. I put a printf in the loop and found that the change occurs > only on the last loop iteration. I would include the code, Please include the code, this sounds a lot like a subscript out of range problem.
sjk@utastro.UUCP (Scot Kleinman) (09/19/88)
Dear Net, A while ago I posted a problem I had in Manx with a variable being changed after running a loop which modified other variables. Well, it turns out, I was indeed overwriting an array. Chalk it up to being a novice programmer, not used to the intricasies of C. I am now a little confused, however. The first element in an array is numbered 0 (i was using a char array in my procedure), so when you declare the array, does one declare the number of entries (ex.3 entries numbered 0, 1, and 2) or the highest index number (ex. 3, giving 4 entries 0,1,2,3)? I assume, from my mistake, that the former is the proper technique, but trying to test the theory confused me even more. I guess I sould really be posting this to the C net, but I wanted to explain what had happened, and apologize for suggesting it may be a bug (oh, what ignorance!) The program I am working on is designed to be run on startup and will tell the uer whose birthdays are coming up within the next two weeks. I can post it when (and if) I ever figure it all out. Thanks for being patient with me and for helping me out. Scot sjk@astro.as.utexas.edu Thanks a million! -Phil Alvin