Author Topic: With Alt-, in a .c file the wrong compatible parameters are offered  (Read 450 times)

rowbearto

  • Senior Community Member
  • Posts: 1875
  • Hero Points: 122
Look for compatparams.tar.gz on support, and follow instructions in the README file.
« Last Edit: March 04, 2021, 03:34:55 am by rowbearto »

Dennis

  • SlickEdit Team Member
  • Senior Community Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3234
  • Hero Points: 460
Re: With Alt-, in a .c file the wrong compatible parameters are offered
« Reply #1 on: March 04, 2021, 10:37:41 pm »
Just to let you know, I got this and the others, and plan to look into them next week.

rowbearto

  • Senior Community Member
  • Posts: 1875
  • Hero Points: 122
Re: With Alt-, in a .c file the wrong compatible parameters are offered
« Reply #2 on: March 21, 2021, 02:55:43 pm »

Dennis

  • SlickEdit Team Member
  • Senior Community Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3234
  • Hero Points: 460
Re: With Alt-, in a .c file the wrong compatible parameters are offered
« Reply #3 on: March 22, 2021, 02:11:52 pm »
I still have all your bug reports on my todo list.  A feature that I expected to take two weeks took four so things fell back a bit.

Dennis

  • SlickEdit Team Member
  • Senior Community Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3234
  • Hero Points: 460
Re: With Alt-, in a .c file the wrong compatible parameters are offered
« Reply #4 on: April 05, 2021, 07:09:24 pm »
I tried the example and used your user.cfg.xml.  All the test cases worked fine, except for the third one, where it indeed did not list &FLASHmutexHandle, however, that symbol was not defined in the source file.  Maybe there was an additional header file you intended to include?

I did stumble upon a couple minor bugs, in ANSI-C mode, we shouldn't be offering "nullptr" or "new CLASS" as completion options.  I will add fixes for that to the 25.0.1 hot fix.

rowbearto

  • Senior Community Member
  • Posts: 1875
  • Hero Points: 122
Re: With Alt-, in a .c file the wrong compatible parameters are offered
« Reply #5 on: April 05, 2021, 07:50:32 pm »
I just tried it and I observe the same as you. For the 3rd parameter I see same as you, but my code has evolved since that time so I can't find where the original came from to give you for reproduction.

When I reported this I had hotfix 2, but now I have hotfix 6. Something must have been fixed between hotfixes 2 and 6 to fix this.