Don't you think the problem is in using a recursive function to zero arrays instead of a simple for-end cycle?

Bye

Silvio

| > Beware dynamic array sizing. This caught me out ... | > | > PROGRAM dyn_arr_test(input,output); | > | > CONST | > a = 3; | > b = 10; | > | > TYPE | > Dyn_arr( Max_index : INTEGER ) = ARRAY [1..Max_index] OF INTEGER; | > Ptr_to_dyn_arr = ^Dyn_arr; | > | > VAR | > Test1 : Ptr_to_dyn_arr; | > Test2 : Ptr_to_dyn_arr; | > Test1a : ARRAY [1..3] OF INTEGER; | > Test2a : ARRAY [1..10] OF INTEGER; | > | > PROCEDURE zero(VAR param; ch : char; size : longint); asmname 'memset'; | > | > BEGIN | > NEW( Test1, a ); | > writeln(sizeof(Test1^)); | > zero(Test1^,#0,sizeof(Test1^)); | > NEW( Test2, b ); | > writeln(sizeof(Test2^)); | > zero(Test2^,#0,sizeof(Test2^)); | > | > writeln(sizeof(Test1a)); | > zero(Test1a,#0,sizeof(Test1a)); | > writeln(sizeof(Test2a)); | > zero(Test2a,#0,sizeof(Test2a)); | > END. | > | > The results are 16 and 44 for the dynamic arrays, 12 and 40 for the | > non-dynamic arrays. | > ie. the 'sizeof' function returns an additional 4 words for the dynamic | > arrays and so my zero function was overwriting memory beyond the dynamic | > array boundaries. | > | > Is this an unavoidable feature, a compiler bug or to be completely | > expected? | > | > I am assuming the 'new' function doesn't explicitly zero memory and so I | > need to do. I have used this zero function on all the usual Pascal | > variables without problem, but I suspect it has a strange effect when | > used to zero a record containing a string. Can anyone confirm whether | > there are particular Pascal structures that shouldn't be zeroed by this | > technique (apart from dynamic arrays)? | > | > Regards | > | > David Wood | > QinetiQ, Farnborough |