(BUG) Inline assembly/breakpoints in lcc

[Chris Peters]

Hello Group

Can anyone confirm or suggest workrounds for the following bug in
lccwin32. If an inline assembly statement immediately follows a for loop
and you try to set a breakpoint on it, then the breakpoint is hit at each
iteration of the loop, not after the loop finishes.

Thanks

Chris

[santosh]

Richard Heathfield wrote:

santosh said:

>Bartc wrote:

>>>Chris Peters wrote:
>
Hello Group
>
Can anyone confirm or suggest workrounds for the following bug in
lccwin32.

[ ... ]

>>Have you thought of putting in a Bug Report option in your IDE? Then
this can send a private email or post to the right forum.

He would need to add a whole lot of network/http code for that
function. It makes sense for huge commercial products like MSVC, not
so much for lcc-win.

Oh, it shouldn't be that hard. It can even be done in ISO C.

#include <stdio.h>

extern int compile(int, char **);

int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
int ch;
const char *name = "jacob";
const char *domainname = "fixme.com.inva lid";
compile(argc, argv);
printf("Please type an 'at' character, ");
printf("of the kind found in email addresses.\n");
ch = getchar();
printf("If you have any bug reports,");
printf(" please send them to: %s%c%s\n",
name, ch, domainname);
return 0;
}

I would place the compile invocation after the bug report message and
add an fflush(stdout) after the printfs. Now even an abortion or
segmentation fault during compile cannot affect the output of the
support message.

:-)

[Bartc]

Richard Heathfield wrote:

santosh said:

>Bartc wrote:

>>>Chris Peters wrote:
>
Hello Group
>
Can anyone confirm or suggest workrounds for the following bug in
lccwin32.

[ ... ]

>>Have you thought of putting in a Bug Report option in your IDE? Then
this can send a private email or post to the right forum.

He would need to add a whole lot of network/http code for that
function. It makes sense for huge commercial products like MSVC, not
so much for lcc-win.

Oh, it shouldn't be that hard. It can even be done in ISO C.

Since this is for Windows it can be done easily (emailing anyway) using
something like:

#include <shellapi.h>

int main (void)
{
ShellExecute(0, "open","mailto: ja***@jacob.rem comp.fr",0,0,1) ;
}

--
Bartc

[santosh]

Bartc wrote:

Richard Heathfield wrote:

>santosh said:

>>Bartc wrote:
Chris Peters wrote:
>>
>Hello Group
>>
>Can anyone confirm or suggest workrounds for the following bug in
>lccwin32 .

[ ... ]

Have you thought of putting in a Bug Report option in your IDE?
Then this can send a private email or post to the right forum.

He would need to add a whole lot of network/http code for that
function. It makes sense for huge commercial products like MSVC, not
so much for lcc-win.

Oh, it shouldn't be that hard. It can even be done in ISO C.

Since this is for Windows it can be done easily (emailing anyway)
using something like:

#include <shellapi.h>

int main (void)
{
ShellExecute(0, "open","mailto: ja***@jacob.rem comp.fr",0,0,1) ;
}

You've just exposed jacob's carefully munged email address to all the
spam harvesters of the Internet.

[Richard Heathfield]

santosh said:

Bartc wrote:

<snip>

>{
ShellExecute(0 ,"open","mailto :[elided]",0,0,1);
}

You've just exposed jacob's carefully munged email address to all the
spam harvesters of the Internet.

Er, so did you, just now.

(I, on the other hand, very carefully did not do that, either in my
original reply or in this one. I know Jacob thinks (wrongly, as it
happens) that I'm out to get him, and of course it's common knowledge that
we have massive disagreements from time to time, but I reckon he and I
*can* agree that there are some things you just don't do to people, no
matter how bad the relationship between you, and deliberately increasing
their exposure to spam is right up there in the top three. Having said
that, I'm very sure that the exposures in this thread were a result of
thoughtlessness rather than malice. And this parenthetical comment now
vastly exceeds the length of the text to which it is a parenthetical
comment, so I'd better stop.)

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk >
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

[santosh]

Richard Heathfield wrote:

santosh said:

>Bartc wrote:

<snip>

>>{
ShellExecute( 0,"open","mailt o:[elided]",0,0,1);
}

You've just exposed jacob's carefully munged email address to all the
spam harvesters of the Internet.

Er, so did you, just now.

(I, on the other hand, very carefully did not do that, either in my
original reply or in this one. I know Jacob thinks (wrongly, as it
happens) that I'm out to get him, and of course it's common knowledge
that we have massive disagreements from time to time, but I reckon he
and I *can* agree that there are some things you just don't do to
people, no matter how bad the relationship between you, and
deliberately increasing their exposure to spam is right up there in
the top three. Having said that, I'm very sure that the exposures in
this thread were a result of thoughtlessness rather than malice. And
this parenthetical comment now vastly exceeds the length of the text
to which it is a parenthetical comment, so I'd better stop.)

And I on my part would like to apologise to jacob for thoughtlessly
perpetuating Bartc's mistake for one post more than it should have. I
noticed it immediately after hitting the Send button, but alas, Usenet
cancels are not honoured. However I have deleted my post from Google
Groups.

[Bartc]

"santosh" <sa*********@gm ail.comwrote in message
news:g6******** **@registered.m otzarella.org.. .

Richard Heathfield wrote:

>santosh said:

>>Bartc wrote:

<snip>

>>>{
ShellExecute (0,"open","mail to:[elided]",0,0,1);
}
You've just exposed jacob's carefully munged email address to all the
spam harvesters of the Internet.

Er, so did you, just now.

And I on my part would like to apologise to jacob for thoughtlessly

Yes. I apologise too. And I've removed my post from google, if that makes a
difference.

So much for trying to make my example authentic...

--
Bartc