Reserved Identifiers
#Reserved Identifiers
UnlessUnless you are very sure of the rules about what combinations of leading underscore are reserved for the implementation I would suggest that you do not use underscore (_) as a prefix. Please see this excellent answer for what identifiers are reserved.
#Reserved Identifiers
Unless you are very sure of the rules about what combinations of leading underscore are reserved for the implementation I would suggest that you do not use underscore (_) as a prefix. Please see this excellent answer for what identifiers are reserved.
Reserved Identifiers
Unless you are very sure of the rules about what combinations of leading underscore are reserved for the implementation I would suggest that you do not use underscore (_) as a prefix. Please see this excellent answer for what identifiers are reserved.
#Reserved Identifiers
Unless you are very sure of the rules about what combinations of leading underscore are reserved for the implementation I would suggest that you do not use underscore (_) as a prefix. Please see this excellent answer this excellent answer for what identifiers are reserved.
#Reserved Identifiers
Unless you are very sure of the rules about what combinations of leading underscore are reserved for the implementation I would suggest that you do not use underscore (_) as a prefix. Please see this excellent answer for what identifiers are reserved.
#Reserved Identifiers
Unless you are very sure of the rules about what combinations of leading underscore are reserved for the implementation I would suggest that you do not use underscore (_) as a prefix. Please see this excellent answer for what identifiers are reserved.
I read the above as: i = a * 10 + m. Lets call the lowest address that the system can assign to user heap or stack for a_min, conversely call the largest address a_max. The same goes for m with m_min and m_max. The only way the above expression can be safe is if a_min*10 > mm_max and a_min*10 > a_max. I fired up my debugger and grabed the first heap pointer I could find: a_min <= {a=0x5a08c00} <= a_max and the first instruction pointer {m=0x141533749} <= m_max.
Note that a*10 = 0x38457800 < 0x141533749m=0x141533749 --> a_min*10 <!> mm_max which means that you have collisions in your identity function. This is asking for trouble...
I read the above as: i = a * 10 + m. Lets call the lowest address that the system can assign to user heap or stack for a_min, conversely call the largest address a_max. The only way the above expression can be safe is a_min*10 > m and a_min*10 > a_max. I fired up my debugger and grabed the first heap pointer I could find: a_min <= {a=0x5a08c00} <= a_max and the first instruction pointer m=0x141533749.
Note that a*10 = 0x38457800 < 0x141533749 --> a_min*10 < m which means that you have collisions in your identity function. This is asking for trouble...
I read the above as: i = a * 10 + m. Lets call the lowest address that the system can assign to user heap or stack for a_min, conversely call the largest address a_max. The same goes for m with m_min and m_max. The only way the above expression can be safe is if a_min*10 > m_max and a_min*10 > a_max. I fired up my debugger and grabed the first heap pointer I could find: a_min <= {a=0x5a08c00} and the first instruction pointer {m=0x141533749} <= m_max.
Note that a*10 = 0x38457800 < m=0x141533749 --> a_min*10 !> m_max which means that you have collisions in your identity function. This is asking for trouble...