Re^2: Odd behaviour of chomp()

To me, all the four examples you provide return a perfectly valid result, or at least exactly the result I would expect. So nothing wrong with them IMHO.

Contrary to the OP's question, which really appears to be displaying an actual bug.

Update: Of course, I meant: all the four examples as originally provided by sundialsvc4 return a perfectly valid result. The last example, as it stand now, does no longer return a valid result, but that example was changed by its author almost 24 hours after I posted my comment above. Fortunately, hippo provided a copy-and-paste of the last example as it was originally posted and as it was when I answered, thus showing that this comment was right at the time.

Comment on Re^2: Odd behaviour of chomp()

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Odd behaviour of chomp() by Salvor (Novice) on Oct 20, 2015 at 16:11 UTC
Many thanks to you all! Conclusions like "It's a bug" or "It appears to be a bug" are perfectly ok for me ;-)	[reply]
Re^3: Odd behaviour of chomp() by locked_user sundialsvc4 (Abbot) on Oct 21, 2015 at 14:14 UTC
The corrected example merely repeats the originally reported bug. Certainly won’t be the first time that an optimizer produced incorrect results. Delphi-6 had a similar bug, too, that vexed me for a time. It is almost a general rule-of-thumb that, if calling any function that modifies one of its inputs, do not assign the result back to the same variable. Optimizers like to remove “unnecessary” loads and stores, and they like to re-order things, and it becomes a gray area. Just put the result down someplace else.