2015-09-08, 07:58 PM
It was undefined so it was implicitly defined as UBYTE. And yes it works fine if explicitly defined as UINTEGER.
So not so serious then but I still think it's a minor bug because the compiler is clearly using the FOR range to decide what implicit size n should have - shouldn't it switch to UINTEGER at 255 instead of 256 as it appears to do now?
I accept your explanation of the assembler btw...
So not so serious then but I still think it's a minor bug because the compiler is clearly using the FOR range to decide what implicit size n should have - shouldn't it switch to UINTEGER at 255 instead of 256 as it appears to do now?
I accept your explanation of the assembler btw...