my code is 110% correct; eg no errors and runs properly. see.
int _val; int myfunc2(int val) { _val = val; return _val; }; int Bar(int val) { return _val + val + 1; }; void myfunc1(int val) { _val += Bar(val); }; etc etc etc
it doesnt give me the right answer sometime.
HEEEEEEEELLLLLLLPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP
"Then mine happened to be the project where all the external conditions (speed of CPU, speed of peripheral device, etc.) were just right to trip the lurking bug." I am not convinced that it is a bug.
Well, I am - unless the "speed of CPU, speed of peripheral device etc." was in combination with code reuse on anoter processor. I have had cases where a bug only showed its ugly face when a peripheral within specs ran slow.
I think it is practically impossible to write completely bug-free code that works under all circumstances. maybe, but not an excuse
Instead, we all write code pieces that have "limitations" that unravel under certain conditions. it is our job to document such limitations so that when we are in a circumstance where the limitations become reality, we know that we need to fix the code for that particular application. this is either total BS or something that refer to reusability of code.
Erik
Remember that datasheet limits just tell you where the behaviour & performance is guaranteed; they tell you nothing about the behaviour & performance outside those limits - other than that it is undefined.
"Undefined" means that anything could happen - including appearing to work for 10 years, and then "suddenly" not working...
"Remember that datasheet limits just tell you where the behaviour & performance is guaranteed; they tell you nothing about the behaviour & performance outside those limits - other than that it is undefined.
"Undefined" means that anything could happen - including appearing to work for 10 years, and then "suddenly" not working..."
are you suggesting that the "slow" speed at which the cpu was running is outside of the spec defined in the datasheet?
or you are speculating on that? as the poster clearly didn't provide that piece of information.
Llllooooooootttttssss of stupid replys and arguments and no answer!!!!!!!
yu people got too much loose time.
thanks guys.
You seem to be as helpless as your code. 110% clueless.
and no answer!!!!!!!
... says the person who asked the original question, and couldn't be bothered to react to any of the answers he got, for 6 full days. Get a life.
No, I'm not speculating - I'm generalising.
"yu people got too much loose time."
For tightening up loose time, tools are not normally on display for the unskilled to just pick up and check out with, but at http://www.mcguckin.com/ you can ask a staff member along with a wink-wink, nudge-nudge, say-no-more type of behavior and they'll get you fixed up in no time flat -- at least that's where I went the first time my time had gone a bit slack -- I think.
I say "I think", because once time got all loose and wobbly, I have vague memories of going to the hardware store to pick up a time-tightener, tightening, then I'm back at the hardware store.
"No, I'm not speculating - I'm generalising."
you are generalizing in a discussion about a specific bug?
have you thought about maybe generalizing somewhere else?
No - it's not a discussion about a specific bug!
Ashley Madison,
Is this your thing? You know, arguing in order to argue? Why not become a philosopher, them?
"No - it's not a discussion about a specific bug!"
is that your generalization again?
GIRLZ.
SIT DOWN AND BE QUIET.
You all do not know to answer my question. You all think you must answer so you look clever. You all hijak my thread. You all think you are the cleverererest. You all score null point only.
All you write tells me you are crazy and you must learn to be quiet.
"You all do not know to answer my question."
You have not asked any question.
Of course that must be "Why not become a philosopher, then?"
You did not ask any question!
Again:
You just showed a few function definitions; you didn't shown how you combine all that into a real program.
You didn't explain what you think should be the "right" answers.
You didn't explain what answers you get - and why you think they are "wrong".
"You all hijak my thread"
Actually, you abandoned your thread!
You showed no interest whatsoever for 6 days - so is it any surprise that it wandered off-topic?!
If you want to keep the thread on-track, it's up to you to engage with the discussion!