Login
User Name:

Password:



Register
Forgot your password?
Vote for Us!
AFKMud 2.2.2
Mar 3, 2019 5:35 pm
By Samson
Development
Nov 28, 2018 12:10 pm
By Keirath
First Immortal
Oct 12, 2018 2:02 pm
By GatewaySysop
Bug in do_climb( )
Jun 5, 2018 7:31 pm
By joeyfogas
question on overland code
May 31, 2018 12:03 pm
By joeyfogas
SmaugFUSS 1.9.3
Author: Various
Submitted by: Samson
AFKMud 2.2.2
Author: AFKMud Team
Submitted by: Samson
tintin++ ogg sound player script for linux
Author: Robert Smith
Submitted by: Vladaar
6Dragons ogg Soundpack
Author: Vladaar
Submitted by: Vladaar
6Dragons 4.4
Author: Vladaar
Submitted by: Vladaar
Users Online
CommonCrawl, Bing

Members: 0
Guests: 20
Stats
Files
Topics
Posts
Members
Newest Member
483
3,743
19,401
655
RodrickMci
Today's Birthdays
There are no member birthdays today.
Related Links
» SmaugMuds » Bugfix Lists » SWR FUSS Bugfix List » [Bug] Improper damage message...
Forum Rules | Mark all | Recent Posts

[Bug] Improper damage messages from dam_message
< Newer Topic :: Older Topic >

Pages:<< prev 1 next >>
Post is unread #1 Oct 14, 2007 1:12 pm
Go to the top of the page
Go to the bottom of the page

Samson
Black Hand
GroupAdministrators
Posts3,647
JoinedJan 1, 2002

Bug: Improper damage messages from dam_message
Danger: Medium - Damage values calculated incorrectly result in confusing messages
Found by: Luc
Fixed by: Luc

---

fight.c, dam_message

Locate:
   short dampc;


Change to:
   int dampc;


Luc said:

On my PC this produce roughly one '**** SMITE ****' damage message out of four average, while they should be 4 on 4. The others are simple 'brushes' even if the damage causes the immediate death of the wolf. This may seem like a little thing, but its cause is a conceptual error: a short int variable in dam_message() has been employed to hold a value coming from an expression that can produce results far outside the 16 bits signed integer value range, so only the lower half of the result got stored. With some combinations of damage hps /victim hps the value stored for a successive consideration goes incorrectly negative.
       
Pages:<< prev 1 next >>