Interesting technique used in some Legacy code!
-
This was at the top of the code:
#define 300 1
#define 100 0I'm amazed that the compiler even accepted it! :rolleyes:
"State acheived after eating too many chocolate-covered coconut bars - bountiful" Chris C-B
No problem with the compiler, but that code should give a one-way ticket to the developer...
I'm not questioning your powers of observation; I'm merely remarking upon the paradox of asking a masked man who he is. (V)
-
Wow! You broke maths!
It wasn't me! :rolleyes: :laugh: :laugh: I couldn't believe it compiled, but it must have. I guess there was a bug in the compiler that let it through because now it doesn't. :rolleyes:
"State acheived after eating too many chocolate-covered coconut bars - bountiful" Chris C-B
-
No problem with the compiler, but that code should give a one-way ticket to the developer...
I'm not questioning your powers of observation; I'm merely remarking upon the paradox of asking a masked man who he is. (V)
Kornfeld Eliyahu Peter wrote:
that code should give a one-way ticket to the developer...
He's gone! :-D ... but that means someone else has to sort it out! :( :rolleyes:
"State acheived after eating too many chocolate-covered coconut bars - bountiful" Chris C-B
-
Kornfeld Eliyahu Peter wrote:
that code should give a one-way ticket to the developer...
He's gone! :-D ... but that means someone else has to sort it out! :( :rolleyes:
"State acheived after eating too many chocolate-covered coconut bars - bountiful" Chris C-B
It shouldn't take more than one block of chocolate to you :laugh:
I'm not questioning your powers of observation; I'm merely remarking upon the paradox of asking a masked man who he is. (V)
-
It shouldn't take more than one block of chocolate to you :laugh:
I'm not questioning your powers of observation; I'm merely remarking upon the paradox of asking a masked man who he is. (V)
If only consumption of chocolate would fix that code! :rolleyes:
"State acheived after eating too many chocolate-covered coconut bars - bountiful" Chris C-B
-
This was at the top of the code:
#define 300 1
#define 100 0I'm amazed that the compiler even accepted it! :rolleyes:
"State acheived after eating too many chocolate-covered coconut bars - bountiful" Chris C-B
Well, the good news is it wasn't hidden away in a header file... :omg: If it's any consolation, A FORTRAN compiler I used to work with years, and years ago would accept a constant value as a function parameter, and let you change it at run time. I can't remember FORTRAN syntax any more but it would be similar to:
void MyMethod (ref int i)
{
i = 666;
}
...
Console.WriteLine(42);
MyMethod(42);
Console.WriteLine(42);Would happily print: 42 666
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. --- George Santayana (December 16, 1863 – September 26, 1952) Those who fail to clear history are doomed to explain it. --- OriginalGriff (February 24, 1959 – ∞)
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt -
Well, the good news is it wasn't hidden away in a header file... :omg: If it's any consolation, A FORTRAN compiler I used to work with years, and years ago would accept a constant value as a function parameter, and let you change it at run time. I can't remember FORTRAN syntax any more but it would be similar to:
void MyMethod (ref int i)
{
i = 666;
}
...
Console.WriteLine(42);
MyMethod(42);
Console.WriteLine(42);Would happily print: 42 666
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. --- George Santayana (December 16, 1863 – September 26, 1952) Those who fail to clear history are doomed to explain it. --- OriginalGriff (February 24, 1959 – ∞)
-
Well, the good news is it wasn't hidden away in a header file... :omg: If it's any consolation, A FORTRAN compiler I used to work with years, and years ago would accept a constant value as a function parameter, and let you change it at run time. I can't remember FORTRAN syntax any more but it would be similar to:
void MyMethod (ref int i)
{
i = 666;
}
...
Console.WriteLine(42);
MyMethod(42);
Console.WriteLine(42);Would happily print: 42 666
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. --- George Santayana (December 16, 1863 – September 26, 1952) Those who fail to clear history are doomed to explain it. --- OriginalGriff (February 24, 1959 – ∞)
OriginalGriff wrote:
I can't remember FORTRAN syntax any more
Getting old?!
I'm not questioning your powers of observation; I'm merely remarking upon the paradox of asking a masked man who he is. (V)
-
You surely meant to write
void MyMethod (const int i)
{
i = 666;
}The console is a black place
No, that implies the wrong thing. The compiler stored all it's constant values in memory locations, so it could happily pass a reference (or more accurately in those days a machine code pointer) to a constant value and it would act like a variable. Total PITA to debug when you met it for the first time: and a hanging offence to leave in production code...
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. --- George Santayana (December 16, 1863 – September 26, 1952) Those who fail to clear history are doomed to explain it. --- OriginalGriff (February 24, 1959 – ∞)
-
OriginalGriff wrote:
I can't remember FORTRAN syntax any more
Getting old?!
I'm not questioning your powers of observation; I'm merely remarking upon the paradox of asking a masked man who he is. (V)
I haven't used it for years - and archive retrieval is a lot slower than online storage! :laugh:
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. --- George Santayana (December 16, 1863 – September 26, 1952) Those who fail to clear history are doomed to explain it. --- OriginalGriff (February 24, 1959 – ∞)
-
I haven't used it for years - and archive retrieval is a lot slower than online storage! :laugh:
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. --- George Santayana (December 16, 1863 – September 26, 1952) Those who fail to clear history are doomed to explain it. --- OriginalGriff (February 24, 1959 – ∞)
-
This was at the top of the code:
#define 300 1
#define 100 0I'm amazed that the compiler even accepted it! :rolleyes:
"State acheived after eating too many chocolate-covered coconut bars - bountiful" Chris C-B
As a side-effect, wouldn't it change
30000to0via30000->100->0? -
This was at the top of the code:
#define 300 1
#define 100 0I'm amazed that the compiler even accepted it! :rolleyes:
"State acheived after eating too many chocolate-covered coconut bars - bountiful" Chris C-B
-
OriginalGriff wrote:
archive retrieval
Magnetic tape at 300 baud? Does the tape reader still work with current Windows?
I wish! This is the long term storage between my ears we are talking about here... :laugh: I just wish I could find a way to re-index it occasionally ;)
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. --- George Santayana (December 16, 1863 – September 26, 1952) Those who fail to clear history are doomed to explain it. --- OriginalGriff (February 24, 1959 – ∞)
-
What happens then when you try to divide a number by 100? Just curious ^^
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who separate humankind in two distinct categories, and those who don't. "I have two hobbies: breasts." DSK
I guess, if you did try to do that, you would get a 'divide by 0 error'. Fortunately its only a small project and neither 100 or 300 were ever used as absolute values. It loaded a int with either 300 or 100 (ie 0 or 1) then later it checked to see if that int was equal to 300 or 100 (ie 0 or 1), so it did work but not a technique I would recommend! :rolleyes: :-D
"State acheived after eating too many chocolate-covered coconut bars - bountiful" Chris C-B
-
I guess, if you did try to do that, you would get a 'divide by 0 error'. Fortunately its only a small project and neither 100 or 300 were ever used as absolute values. It loaded a int with either 300 or 100 (ie 0 or 1) then later it checked to see if that int was equal to 300 or 100 (ie 0 or 1), so it did work but not a technique I would recommend! :rolleyes: :-D
"State acheived after eating too many chocolate-covered coconut bars - bountiful" Chris C-B
-
No, that implies the wrong thing. The compiler stored all it's constant values in memory locations, so it could happily pass a reference (or more accurately in those days a machine code pointer) to a constant value and it would act like a variable. Total PITA to debug when you met it for the first time: and a hanging offence to leave in production code...
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. --- George Santayana (December 16, 1863 – September 26, 1952) Those who fail to clear history are doomed to explain it. --- OriginalGriff (February 24, 1959 – ∞)
Changing the value of a literal for subsequent uses of the same literal is pure evil. Who could have ever thought, it was a good idea to implement constants that way? :omg: Was it possibly done to keep the image size of the executable small?
The good thing about pessimism is, that you are always either right or pleasently surprised.
-
Changing the value of a literal for subsequent uses of the same literal is pure evil. Who could have ever thought, it was a good idea to implement constants that way? :omg: Was it possibly done to keep the image size of the executable small?
The good thing about pessimism is, that you are always either right or pleasently surprised.
Probably - everything was kept small in those days: we didn't have anywhere near as much disk space as you do cache! If I remember rightly, it was a GEC4070[^] - so the main memory would have been 512Kb - and a dozen users using it...
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. --- George Santayana (December 16, 1863 – September 26, 1952) Those who fail to clear history are doomed to explain it. --- OriginalGriff (February 24, 1959 – ∞)
-
Well, the good news is it wasn't hidden away in a header file... :omg: If it's any consolation, A FORTRAN compiler I used to work with years, and years ago would accept a constant value as a function parameter, and let you change it at run time. I can't remember FORTRAN syntax any more but it would be similar to:
void MyMethod (ref int i)
{
i = 666;
}
...
Console.WriteLine(42);
MyMethod(42);
Console.WriteLine(42);Would happily print: 42 666
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. --- George Santayana (December 16, 1863 – September 26, 1952) Those who fail to clear history are doomed to explain it. --- OriginalGriff (February 24, 1959 – ∞)
Oh that's some exciting crap right there.
-
This was at the top of the code:
#define 300 1
#define 100 0I'm amazed that the compiler even accepted it! :rolleyes:
"State acheived after eating too many chocolate-covered coconut bars - bountiful" Chris C-B
You forgot ;P
#define true 0
#define false 1
#define maybe trueMy programming get away... The Blog... DirectX for WinRT/C# since 2013! Taking over the world since 1371!
