RE: Ebcdic2ascii

CRTBNDC of original Jevgeni's source worked on v5r1 and v5r3.

As to your change, I don't recall all the rules on the "const" usage, but
shouldn't it mean that the 'count' variable can NOT be modified in the funct
function?
You are attempting to change it by decrementing it.  
Again, I don't recall what the const rules are in C.

-----Original Message-----
From: c400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:c400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Jevgeni Astanovski
Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2004 11:11 AM
To: C programming iSeries / AS400
Subject: RE: [C400-L] Ebcdic2ascii

My compiler gave Beppe's error message when I modified my program like this:

void funct(char *dest, const char *srce, const size_t count)
{                                                           
  while(count-- != 0)                                       
  {                                                         
    *dest++ = 256 - (*srce++) ;                             
  }                                                         
}                                                           

Don't you think, that as the calling function is declared as static, and
count variable is defined there, compiler did some wrong assumptions?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bob Crothers [mailto:bob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2004 7:07 PM
> To: 'C programming iSeries / AS400'
> Subject: RE: [C400-L] Ebcdic2ascii
> 
> 
> It is also a good practice to have the variable on the right and the
> constant on the left.  That way the compiler will catch the 
> mistake of:
> 
> while (x = 0)
> 
> Eg: Single equal sign is an assignment statement...usually 
> what is desired
> is a == for " while x equals 0".
> 
> Bob
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: c400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:c400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On
> > Behalf Of Hall, Philip
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2004 11:01 AM
> > To: C programming iSeries / AS400
> > Subject: RE: [C400-L] Ebcdic2ascii
> > 
> > 
> > >      0    283        |         while (count-- != 0)  á
> > 
> > I know this might seem simplistic, but have you tried changing the
> > position of the variables?  i.e using while( 0 != count-- )
> > 
> > Perhaps the compiler is doing some (arguably, 'smart') 
> manipulation of the
> > storage class of the left-hand side variable in an attempt 
> to stream line
> > the code, which in turn makes the left-hand variable no longer a
> > modifiable variable - which *is* a bug if it turns out to 
> be the case.
> > 
> > --phil
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > This is the C programming iSeries / AS400 (C400-L) mailing list
> > To post a message email: C400-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> > To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
> > visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/c400-l
> > or email: C400-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
> > at http://archive.midrange.com/c400-l.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> This is the C programming iSeries / AS400 (C400-L) mailing list
> To post a message email: C400-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
> visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/c400-l
> or email: C400-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
> at http://archive.midrange.com/c400-l.
> 
> 

_______________________________________________
This is the C programming iSeries / AS400 (C400-L) mailing list
To post a message email: C400-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/c400-l
or email: C400-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at http://archive.midrange.com/c400-l.