Contract has inherent loop issues from original source

[geopayme]

I have tried to run this contract like the original, on Remix with Metamask, they all have the same issue...

Gas requirement of function FucksToken.approveAndCall(address,uint256,bytes) high: infinite. If the gas requirement of a function is higher than the block gas limit, it cannot be executed. Please avoid loops in your functions or actions that modify large areas of storage (this includes clearing or copying arrays in storage)

Gas requirement of function FucksToken.name() high: infinite. If the gas requirement of a function is higher than the block gas limit, it cannot be executed. Please avoid loops in your functions or actions that modify large areas of storage (this includes clearing or copying arrays in storage

Gas requirement of function FucksToken.symbol() high: infinite. If the gas requirement of a function is higher than the block gas limit, it cannot be executed. Please avoid loops in your functions or actions that modify large areas of storage (this includes clearing or copying arrays in storage)

Gas requirement of function FucksToken.transferAnyERC20Token(address,uint256) high: infinite. If the gas requirement of a function is higher than the block gas limit, it cannot be executed. Please avoid loops in your functions or actions that modify large areas of storage (this includes clearing or copying arrays in storage)

Gas requirement of function FucksToken.transferFrom(address,address,uint256) high: infinite. If the gas requirement of a function is higher than the block gas limit, it cannot be executed. Please avoid loops in your functions or actions that modify large areas of storage (this includes clearing or copying arrays in storage)

ApproveAndCallFallBack.receiveApproval(address,uint256,address,bytes) : Variables have very similar names tokens and token. Note: Modifiers are currently not considered by this static analysis.

FucksToken.balanceOf(address) : Variables have very similar names balances and balance. Note: Modifiers are currently not considered by this static analysis.

Use assert(x) if you never ever want x to be false, not in any circumstance (apart from a bug in your code). Use require(x) if x can be false, due to e.g. invalid input or a failing external component.
more

The contract never executes it is stuck in a perpetual loop... any thoughts?

[anticlimactic]

Could you give me the precise instructions to replicate your issues? I'll take a look at it after you provide some more detail instructions. 👍

[geopayme]

Trying to fix them... once I get code working I will send corrections

[kenmistry]

hi, i followed the steps outlined in this article to set up a contract for testing. i am also receiving the same 8 warnings raised by "Static Analysis". the only variables i changed were:

• the token and its naming details
• total supply to be five times the original amount outlined in the contract template

[kvzn]

Got these 8 warnings while using this sol at http://remix.ethereum.org , please give some advices.

[nek8]

browser/ballot.sol:115:17: ParserError: Expected '(' but got identifier constructor YourTokenName() public {
^------------^

[johnsoncarl]

maybe you are using some later compiler @nek8 and it is made in an older one, where constructor name was the same as the contract name.

In later versions, the constructor is defined as
constructor() public {}

[suspectzed]

You might want to add the self-destruct function to the 0FUCKS token code. That way newb's, like myself, wont clog the EVM storage with useless junk. 8)