Re: Cleanup for 1.0.50

> Now, the code itself looks fine, although something seems to be 
> corrupting the value of tm.  Look at the following excerpt from my 
> gdb session, before and after I execute line 982 (the default_day 
> assignment, above):
> (gdb) p default_day
> $18 = 0
> (gdb) p tm
> $19 = (struct tm *) 0x40491910
> (gdb) next
> 982		def_pos = 0;
> (gdb) p tm
> $20 = (struct tm *) 0x1
> (gdb) 

This sounds just like the compiler optimized the memory usage.  Just
compile without optimizations and you will find that the code does
make more sense.

That being said, from reading the source code, I do not understand why
this is happening at al..

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]