On Aug 15, 6:40 pm, "Jim Langston" <tazmas...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
"mike3" <mike4...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1187224319.673432.36480@l22g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 15, 3:31 pm, Frank Birbacher <bloodymir.c...@gmx.net> wrote:
Hi!
mike3 schrieb:
I tried it, thing still fails. It seems to
happen with operators that return "BigFloat"
and not "constBigFloat&".
It seems there is something wrong with your copy constructor. But your
code is to complex for manual analysis. Can you possibly cut your code
down to a little working example which shows the error? Maybe drop all
but one operator (i.e. +) and all sourrounding code?
Frank
See the thing is though that the problem
only became evident when it was used in a complex
program. But not using the offending area of code
seems to cause the problem to disappear. But I
can't just not use the code and I want the thing
to work.
Copy your program to a new program. Start reducing the size trying to get
it
to compile in a small a size as possible still showing the bug. Removing
things from the class that shouldn't be necessary to show the bug etc...
Either you'll reduce the program to something small enough to show us, or
you'll remove something and the program will stop working or the bug will
go
away. At this point it might come up, "Oh, THAT'S why it's happening!"
I've tried using debugger output functions to display messages that
wouldt
tell me what gets called, etc. before the crash and isolated it to
something
that uses memory (go figure), but it only fails when BigFloats are
used.
And that's where I'm stumped. Is the bug in BigFloat, or this? It's
this
peculiar interaction between BigFloat and this other thing that
doesn't make
any sense. None of them are supposed to overflow. And it's only when
"BigFloat"-returning operators get used in that thing I showed.
This is so strange.
screwing up the memory. Can you post the entire BigFloat class?