From: me7@privacy.net   
      
   On 29 May 2005 03:00:58 -0700, in   
   <1117360858.156239.268110@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "Jim   
   Leonard"  wrote:   
      
   >John Smith wrote:   
   >> Jim:   
   >>   
   >> Don't push it, the only reason the code worked on my machine is because of   
   the delay introduced by the case statement...   
   >   
   >The complexity of the generated code behind case statements pales in   
   >comparison to some of the other routines used in the code I posted.  I   
   >don't know where you got the idea that a case statement results in slow   
   >code, but you are mistaken.   
   >   
   >> turbo pascal ran great on windows 3.1 and windows 95... has a bit of a   
   problem on NT (windows xp) and a fast machine...    
   >   
   >Maybe you are still using an unpatched CRT unit?  Fast machines confuse   
   >the delay routine and programs that use the stock unpatched CRT unit   
   >immediately crash on anything faster than a Pentium 166.   
      
   This last line is the key - they IMMEDIATELY CRASH... with a very   
   clear and disturbing divide by zero error.   
      
   It would be a major failure to supply relevant information if   
   John Smith is seeing this sort of crash since he hasn't mentioned   
   it.   
      
   If the programs don't crash, but work (or not) differently on   
   different machines, perhaps the difference is in the hardware or   
   in corrupted compiler software.   
      
   I'd suggest taking code that runs when compiled on machine X, but   
   doesn't run when compiled on machine Y and moving the working   
   executable code compiled on X over to Y and see what happens.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)