Richard Maine wrote:
> Might one of the pointers in question have an undefined pointer
> association status? If the association status is undefined, then
> you aren't allowed to even call associated. Or for that matter, is
> one of them disassociated? If you are just looking at pointer
> innards such as the target address, that might be irrelevant if there
> is a bit somewhere else saying that the pointer is disassociated.
Unfortunately showing more code would require a few thousand lines.
Anyway, it is not that important---I do believe this to be a problem
with the compiler.
I was wrong in my earlier post---the second argument to ASSOCIATED was
actually not a pointer but rather a plain object (with the TARGET
attribute). The pointers are scalar and I know for a fact that this
compiler does not use dope vectors but rather plain old memory
addresses for such pointers (so I do not see any other implementation
but to compare the addresses), so I cannot explain how it arrived at a
FALSE...
Thanks anyway,
Aleksandar
|