I suppose that you will find my problem stupid, but I wonder if I’m completely
beside of my chair or if there is a real problem.
I’d like you look at dd1.jpg where you can see that I want to initialize a
pointer (process_pp) as I done few lines above with prev_process_pp.
The assembler instruction is pointed by the arrow
(remove_process_from_parameter+38).
First, I don’t understand what the ‘add’ instruction is supposed to do here.
If I execute this assembler line (stepi), the pointer receive the correct
value, but strangely, the original value has been modified as you can see in
ddd2.jpg for (data_hash_p->process_list_p).
Can you explain me why?
Thanks,
Alain.
Alain Bonnefoy a écrit :
I suppose that you will find my problem stupid, but I wonder if I’m completely
beside of my chair or if there is a real problem.
I’d like you look at dd1.jpg where you can see that I want to initialize a
pointer (process_pp) as I done few lines above with prev_process_pp.
The assembler instruction is pointed by the arrow
(remove_process_from_parameter+38).
First, I don’t understand what the ‘add’ instruction is supposed to do here.
If I execute this assembler line (stepi), the pointer receive the correct
value, but strangely, the original value has been modified as you can see in
ddd2.jpg for (data_hash_p->process_list_p).
Can you explain me why?
Thanks,
Alain.
[Image] [Image]
Gloups! If the local variables are declared static, that works fine!
!?!
Alain.
Alain Bonnefoy a écrit :
Alain Bonnefoy a écrit :
I suppose that you will find my problem stupid, but I wonder if I’m completely
beside of my chair or if there is a real problem.
I’d like you look at dd1.jpg where you can see that I want to initialize a
pointer (process_pp) as I done few lines above with prev_process_pp.
The assembler instruction is pointed by the arrow
(remove_process_from_parameter+38).
First, I don’t understand what the ‘add’ instruction is supposed to do here.
If I execute this assembler line (stepi), the pointer receive the correct
value, but strangely, the original value has been modified as you can see in
ddd2.jpg for (data_hash_p->process_list_p).
Can you explain me why?
Thanks,
Alain.
[Image] [Image]
Gloups! If the local variables are declared static, that works fine!
!?!
Alain.
seems to be a ddd joke, the code works fine! I suppose that comes from
optimizations.
Alain.
Well, at least we got to enjoy watching you have a nice conversation with
yourself.
cheers,
Kris
“Alain Bonnefoy” <alain.bonnefoy@icbt.com> wrote in message
news:3C3D87E4.DFC9E487@icbt.com…
Alain Bonnefoy a écrit :
Alain Bonnefoy a écrit :
I suppose that you will find my problem stupid, but I wonder if I’m
completely
beside of my chair or if there is a real problem.
I’d like you look at dd1.jpg where you can see that I want to
initialize a
pointer (process_pp) as I done few lines above with prev_process_pp.
The assembler instruction is pointed by the arrow
(remove_process_from_parameter+38).
First, I don’t understand what the ‘add’ instruction is supposed to do
here.
If I execute this assembler line (stepi), the pointer receive the
correct
value, but strangely, the original value has been modified as you can
see in
ddd2.jpg for (data_hash_p->process_list_p).
Can you explain me why?
Thanks,
Alain.
\
[Image] [Image]
Gloups! If the local variables are declared static, that works fine!
!?!
Alain.
seems to be a ddd joke, the code works fine! I suppose that comes from
optimizations.
Alain.