31.03.2007, 16:29:46
well, it's a year ago.
besides, there's still a difference in what I said a year ago and what you said.
you said the bug is caused by that byte, I just noticed the reference of the number right there in the initialization routine and that I was going to try to increase the amount of space allocated (not just "increase" that byte).
and obviously, I failed.
besides, there's still a difference in what I said a year ago and what you said.
you said the bug is caused by that byte, I just noticed the reference of the number right there in the initialization routine and that I was going to try to increase the amount of space allocated (not just "increase" that byte).
and obviously, I failed.