A week ago it didn't bother compiler at all.The compiler should not have compiled that code a week ago.
The compiler should not have compiled that code a week ago.Well, it is "Delphi compatible" except for the macro's of course, but with direct literal values.
Of course, it does not fit, so what?Did it bother the programmer? :D ;D Just file a bug report. (but only against Q- )
A week ago it didn't bother compiler at all.
That said, in Q- state it should ignore the overflow, looks like a bug that the compiler should have caught - with a warning - at compile time.That's reasonable but, $Q is supposed to control runtime overflow checking code generation. At compile time, the compiler already knows it cannot represent the constant, consequently there is no way it can generate correct code.
Well, it is "Delphi compatible" except for the macro's of course, but with direct literal values.I didn't know that nor did I think it would ever do that.
It will be interesting to see what PascalDragon or another FPC developer says about it.marcov just did! With a proper explanation why.
ETA:Always have a Delphi open when something like this pops up.
I didn't know that nor did I think it would ever do that.
The compiler should not have compiled that code a week ago.Of course, you can replace the terms with their sum,
BTW, this error line is located exactly in the body of the hash function.Yes, but in this case AND instead of + works ... :P
It will be interesting to see what PascalDragon or another FPC developer says about it.It's currently a topic on core. You'll see the result when the bug report (https://bugs.freepascal.org/view.php?id=36356) is resolved.