Bug in BC 3.1 
Author Message
 Bug in BC 3.1

Hello,

I have found a bug in the Borland C++ 3.1 compiler.
Try to compile the following code (yes, it contains
a syntax error):

int fun(int type)
{

  double x=0;
  int i;

  switch (type) {
    case 1:
                do
                {
                  x+=1;
                } while x<10;

                while (x<20)
                {
                  x+=1;
                }

                i = 0;
                break;
  }

  return i;

Quote:
}

main() {
   return 0;

Quote:
}

/* PF */

--



Thu, 27 Jun 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 Bug in BC 3.1
Why, oh why are you starting this up again. Your message was answered yesterday
by experts.

1) This is not a C++ newsgroup
2) This is not a Borland Compiler newsgroup
3) Your code has/had errors in it
4) What do you expect we can do about your compiler failure?

Please don't post this again.

Quote:

>Hello,

>I have found a bug in the Borland C++ 3.1 compiler.
>Try to compile the following code (yes, it contains
>a syntax error):

>int fun(int type)
>{

>  double x=0;
>  int i;

>  switch (type) {
>    case 1:
>                do
>                {
>                  x+=1;
>                } while x<10;

>                while (x<20)
>                {
>                  x+=1;
>                }

>                i = 0;
>                break;
>  }

>  return i;
>}

>main() {
>   return 0;
>}

>/* PF */

>--


Lew Pitcher
Master Codewright and JOAT-in-training
--



Fri, 28 Jun 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 Bug in BC 3.1

Quote:

>Why, oh why are you starting this up again. Your message was answered
yesterday
>by experts.

I am NOT starting it again. This message appeared on the group
on January 9th, but I have posted it three days before (Jan 6th).
It didn't reach the group, so I posted it again. And finally
the previous message reached the group - after three days. I have
cancelled it, but probably you saw it between appearing
and cancelling.

Regards
Piotr

--



Fri, 28 Jun 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 Bug in BC 3.1


Quote:

> I have found a bug in the Borland C++ 3.1 compiler.

why would we care?

--



Sat, 29 Jun 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 Bug in BC 3.1

Quote:


>>Why, oh why are you starting this up again. Your message was answered
>yesterday
>>by experts.

>I am NOT starting it again. This message appeared on the group
>on January 9th, but I have posted it three days before (Jan 6th).
>It didn't reach the group, so I posted it again. And finally
>the previous message reached the group - after three days. I have
>cancelled it, but probably you saw it between appearing
>and cancelling.

The reason is that you cross-posted the original to comp.lang.c.moderated
which as its name suggests is a moderated newsgroup. Sometimes
you have to be patient with moderated newsgroups. :-)
The second was posted to just comp.lang.c so it propagated immediately.

--
-----------------------------------------


-----------------------------------------
--



Sat, 29 Jun 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 Bug in BC 3.1

Quote:



>> I have found a bug in the Borland C++ 3.1 compiler.

>why would we care?

It's not topical, but BC3.1 is a popular compiler, and {*filter*}
on source code is a major defect (my copy worked fine).

--
Craig

Manchester, NH
There is a world of endless resources. There is a mind full of
outrageous dreams. There is a place where the two meet. Anything
is possible...  -- Debbie Gibson
--



Sun, 30 Jun 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 
 [ 6 post ] 

 Relevant Pages 

1. Bug in BC 3.1

2. Funny bug in BC 3.1

3. Possible bug in BC 3.1: ellipsis in proto argument list

4. BC 3.1 FAR HEAP!

5. HELP: BC 3.1 DGROUP Problem

6. looking for bc 3.1 port of gnu's regex

7. BC 3.1 (HELP files)

8. Phar Lap's 286|DOS-Extender Lite for BC 3.1/4.0

9. Easy BC 3.1 question

10. BC 3.1 FAR HEAP!

11. BC 2.0 - Prob Running BCX with WIN 3.1

12. BC 3.1 watch problem

 

 
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software