You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to issues@openoffice.apache.org by bu...@apache.org on 2017/06/04 10:29:59 UTC
[Issue 127433] New: packedpixeliterator.hxx : expression used as a
function
https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=127433
Issue ID: 127433
Issue Type: DEFECT
Summary: packedpixeliterator.hxx : expression used as a
function
Product: General
Version: 4.2.0-dev
Hardware: PC
OS: Linux 64-bit
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: Normal
Priority: P5 (lowest)
Component: code
Assignee: issues@openoffice.apache.org
Reporter: nmset@netcourrier.com
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 86124
--> https://bz.apache.org/ooo/attachment.cgi?id=86124&action=edit
packedpixeliteraror.hxx.diff
Build fails on line 611 of packedpixeliterator.hxx :
const int remainder( x(d.x) % num_intraword_positions );
Reported error : expression used as a function.
Changing to :
const int remainder( (x*(d.x)) % num_intraword_positions );
resolved the issue.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the issue.
[Issue 127433] packedpixeliterator.hxx : expression used as a
function
Posted by bu...@apache.org.
https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=127433
--- Comment #1 from SET <nm...@netcourrier.com> ---
I used the multiplication operator '*', but after looking at the code in the
next lines, it seems a minus operator '-' would be more fitting.
Any way, that should be simple for the developer managing that file to really
fix.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the issue.
[Issue 127433] packedpixeliterator.hxx : expression used as a
function
Posted by bu...@apache.org.
https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=127433
chris@chris-barry.org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |chris@chris-barry.org
--- Comment #2 from chris@chris-barry.org ---
I have not unravelled the logic of this completely, but it seems to me that the
first x on line 611 should be removed. Putting an arbutrary operator (* or -)
between it and the rest of the expression makes no sense at all.
This is in a tar ball which I downloaded around 2018-03-26 and I don't see how
it could ever compile. If this is so then how is uncompilable code getting into
a release set?
Also, why has it not been fixed nine months after it was first reported?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the issue.
[Issue 127433] packedpixeliterator.hxx : expression used as a
function
Posted by bu...@apache.org.
https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=127433
SET <nm...@netcourrier.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |nmset@netcourrier.com
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the issue.
[Issue 127433] packedpixeliterator.hxx : expression used as a
function
Posted by bu...@apache.org.
https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=127433
Peter <le...@gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC| |leginee@gmail.com
Status|UNCONFIRMED |CONFIRMED
--- Comment #3 from Peter <le...@gmail.com> ---
Are you sure this is the right solution?
The Issue I have is how to test this bugger, independant of change. If you have
an Idea I am listening. :)
I thought of emulating all possibilities. So I looked at the calling code,
which has the same style, with repeating statements all over. :( I dislike the
code. Which is an issue for me, since then I am more thinking about replaceing
more code. :P
The code does compile if your compiler is old enough. Since we use CentOS6 as
reference machine it is no issue. (Maybe setting -std=gnu++98 would also do the
trick. I still have to find time to test this.)
Please note that the code does have no changes in svn. So it is old. You have
to check archives to see the history of it.
At least for now I set this to confirmed. I think I missed this issue. I am not
sure maybe there is another report around, since it was in more then one
discussion on @dev about it.
Again deliver a testcase too and it gets fixed with your name on it.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the issue.