BlackBox Component Builder Forums

thanks for the bug report and the careful analysis. There was a similar issue reported by Robert some time ago but we were not able to reproduce it and thus have given up on it. It is possible, and even likely, that the issues are related. The proposed bug fix is simple and looks appealing. However,...

As far as I have seen in the compiler output there are two aspects here. One is the usage of an extra buffer and the other is the copying of s in a pattern like s := s + ...; The BB compiler optimized the first aspect, i.e. it tries to avoid an extra buffer when it is save to do so. So far, I don't ...

What about s := s + "xxx" + s; , such operation is now decomposed into three operations: s := s; s += "xxx"; s += s; And the buffer overflow check happens in every operation here. And the search for the final 0X occurs here even twice. If s = "" at the beginning, then ...

> the output code is correct, Oleg complain the qulity of the output code: Thanks for the clarification. In general, when optimizing statements like s := s + ... ; one must be careful about detecting the correct pattern. The following statement may fail if there is no buffer allocated for the result...

I cannot see the problem with statements like s := s + "xxx" in BB.
Can you give an example test case that fails in BB?

- Josef

Ivan Denisov wrote:Try the compiler MultiOberon for x64.
https://forum.oberoncore.ru/viewtopic.php?f=157&t=6423

Interesting approach!
Are there any numbers available regarding compilation speed and execution speed?

- Josef

why can't you use integers 0 and 1 for the boolean case?

yes, it is a bit tricky, but it should work.

- josef

I am not sure that this loop is correct with respect to handling the very last character.
- Josef

A similar and possibly related problem appears under wine when opening the Font dialog from the Attributes menu.
When pressing Cancel, a trap is generated.

It is possible that WinDlg.ChooseFontW behaves slightly different under wine.

- Josef