forums.silverfrost.com

KL · Guest

Dear Paul,

Test49 shows that the statement

exponent (nearest(RX, RX)-RX)-1

gives a wrong result. It seems also that the “+” sign in

nearestRX = nearest(RX,+RX)

is not allowed.

I have run the test with FTN95 Version 5.20.

Klaus Lassmann

PaulLaidler · Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 7:41 pm Post subject:

Is the problem only with version 5.20 and have you tried the patch (version 5.20.1)?

KL · Guest

I have run it with 5.20

KL · Guest

Can I do anything further for clarifying the problem?

Klaus

PaulLaidler · Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 7:27 pm Post subject:

Thank you for reminding me about these bugs.
They do not need further clarification.
We will investigate them as soon as we can.

PaulLaidler · Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 8:22 am Post subject:

Both the bugs only occur when RX is declared as a PARAMETER.
The result is that FTN95 tries to do all of the coding inline and gets it wrong.

KL · Guest

But declaring RX as a parameter is not wrong, or? In this case it is very simple to circumvent the problem, but this is not always the case. So I would suggest to really solve this problem.

Best regards,

Klaus

PaulLaidler · Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 7:15 pm Post subject:

Sorry I did not express myself clearly.
We do intend to fix this bug.
My comment presents a temporary work-around.

KL · Guest

Thank you very much Paul,

there is no hurry from my side. As I knew already a workaround I just thought it a good idea to inform you.

Best regards,

Klaus Lassmann

PaulLaidler · Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 1:57 pm Post subject:

This bug has now been fixed.