Changes between Initial Version and Version 1 of Ticket #3121, comment 5
- Timestamp:
- 2018-06-02T22:58:21Z (7 years ago)
Legend:
- Unmodified
- Added
- Removed
- Modified
-
Ticket #3121, comment 5
initial v1 1 1 Replying to [comment:4 casella]: 2 which is kind of messed up, because all the bindings are lost, so it is not clear how correct code can be produced, unless there is a bug in the function generating the flattened code from the internal AST representation. Please check that2 >which is kind of messed up, because all the bindings are lost, so it is not clear how correct code can be produced, unless there is a bug in the function generating the flattened code from the internal AST representation. Please check that 3 3 The binding is there in the DAE, but it's not output by DAEDump for some reason. It's probably doing something similar to how record constructors are handled, and trying to fetch the binding from the function's output type instead of from the output itself.