Sign in Join

Live chat for Free Pascal, Lazarus, Delphi and every Pascal programmer.

Mailing lists / fpc-devel / 2002-01

Some uncatchable ansistring bug?

3 messages · 3 people ·

Reply by email Subscribe to this list Your subscription

Read-only archive. Use j and k to move between messages.

Aleksey V. Vaneev

Hello,

I've encountered some strange problem (go32v2).

  I have an expression like "s := s + c" buried somewhere deep in my
  code.
  In v1.0.5 of FPC (dated 4-aug-2001) execution of program
  compiled with opt -glh gives no memory losses. But if I'm trying to
  use v1.1 of FPC (dated 19-sep-2001 up to 19-dec-2001) debug reports
  some memory losses pointing to that concat expression.
  For you info, v1.1 dated 19-aug-2001 gives no such error (much like
  v1.0.5).
  I was unable to reproduce this error in some simple manner, so I
  think you could check updates starting from 19-aug to 19-sep - maybe
  some bug (maybe in areas like ansistrings and try blocks) was seeded along
  with some improvements.
  In fact I was really mucked up when the latest Dec 1.1 verison gave me
  EXE that was not working correctly at all (in fact it just hangs
  somewhere), while same Dec 1.0.5 version gives a working executable
  (that runs without any memory loss reports).

Best regards,
Aleksey

Reply by email

Michael Van Canneyt
to Aleksey V. Vaneev
Aleksey V. Vaneev wrote 23 lines
Hello, I've encountered some strange problem (go32v2). I have an expression like "s := s + c" buried somewhere deep in my code. In v1.0.5 of FPC (dated 4-aug-2001) execution of program compiled with opt -glh gives no memory losses. But if I'm trying to use v1.1 of FPC (dated 19-sep-2001 up to 19-dec-2001) debug reports some memory losses pointing to that concat expression. For you info, v1.1 dated 19-aug-2001 gives no such error (much like v1.0.5). I was unable to reproduce this error in some simple manner, so I think you could check updates starting from 19-aug to 19-sep - maybe some bug (maybe in areas like ansistrings and try blocks) was seeded along with some improvements. In fact I was really mucked up when the latest Dec 1.1 verison gave me EXE that was not working correctly at all (in fact it just hangs somewhere), while same Dec 1.0.5 version gives a working executable (that runs without any memory loss reports).

That is why the 1.0.5 branch is called the fixes branch :-) Really, the 1.1 development branch is far from stable, and should not be used for production programming.

We had hoped to release 1.0.6 as soon as possible, but there appear to be some bugs left which should be solved first.

Michael.

Reply by email

Jonas Maebe
to Michael Van Canneyt
Michael Van Canneyt wrote 9 lines
> In fact I was really mucked up when the latest Dec 1.1 verison gave > me > EXE that was not working correctly at all (in fact it just hangs > somewhere), while same Dec 1.0.5 version gives a working executable > (that runs without any memory loss reports). That is why the 1.0.5 branch is called the fixes branch :-) Really, the 1.1 development branch is far from stable, and should not be used for production programming.

But the more that people use it, the better it will be debugged and the sooner we can release it after 1.0.6. Aleksey, could you send me the source? (or tell me where to download it)

Jonas

Reply by email