Re^2: Tracking down an Lvalue bug?

Grr. That'll teach me to try reduce my testcase to a one-liner :(

This 256x1024**2 was intended to be 256*1024**2. Surprisingly (or not) neither strict nor warnings catch the typo.

And when corrected the dynamics of the bug change substantially.

Thanks for calling me on it. Back to the drawing board!

With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'

Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.

"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".

In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.

Comment on Re^2: Tracking down an Lvalue bug? Select or Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Tracking down an Lvalue bug? by ikegami (Patriarch) on Mar 19, 2012 at 23:12 UTC
Back to the drawing board! What are you trying to do?	[reply]
Re^4: Tracking down an Lvalue bug? by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Mar 20, 2012 at 02:27 UTC
Demonstrate that taking an lvalue substr ref causes the referenced substring to be copied, And that this is a bug.	[reply]
Re^5: Tracking down an Lvalue bug? by ikegami (Patriarch) on Mar 20, 2012 at 03:36 UTC
Related to ref to read-only alias ... why?? Can't replicate with `substr`.	[reply] [d/l]
Re^6: Tracking down an Lvalue bug? by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Mar 20, 2012 at 06:10 UTC
Re^7: Tracking down an Lvalue bug? (!fix) by tye (Sage) on Mar 20, 2012 at 14:05 UTC
Re^7: Tracking down an Lvalue bug? by ikegami (Patriarch) on Mar 21, 2012 at 01:30 UTC
Some notes below your chosen depth have not been shown here
Re^7: Tracking down an Lvalue bug? by ikegami (Patriarch) on Mar 21, 2012 at 03:35 UTC
Some notes below your chosen depth have not been shown here