Mail #9125

Zurück zur Archiv-Hauptseite

Vorige Mail   Nächste Mail   Unformatiert/Volle Header
Übersicht  10 Tage   Betreff   Datum   Thread   Autor  

Von: Mirsad Todorovac
Betreff: range check test programs
Datum: 30.7.2003, 18:00:21

On Wed, 30 Jul 2003, Frank Heckenbach wrote:

> Mirsad Todorovac wrote:
>
> > Here is the point when I think I've done what I could. Let's go step by
> > step with this list (I'm sorry if I'm repepating something that has been
> > said already, but the list archive appears to be out :-(:
>
> Perhaps a temporary server overload or something. They seem to be
> working fine.

Yes, sorry, the mail archive is working fine, thanks. I was confused by
outdated not on the web page.

> > > > > What's missing is a test where the formal discriminants are of a
> > > > > subrange type and the actual discriminants (in `New' or a variable
> > > > > declaration) are out of range.
>
> This note was referring to `New' with schemata. I think that's still
> missing.

    http://www.alu.hr/~mtodorov/rngv0.04.tar.gz/mir043[ceil][lu].pas

> > TEST    mir040a.pas:    gpc1: warnings being treated as errors
> > ./mir040a.pas: In main program:
> > ./mir040a.pas:34: warning: tag value must be a constant of ordinal type
> > failed   (I think it could be the problem in GPC, since the code is precisely
> >     the same, as with integer subrange bounds conformant arrays.)
> >
> > Am I allowed to suppress this specific warning, is it possible
> > to do suppress it, or have I done something wrong?
>
> Ah, no. The tag must be constant according to EP, so this actually
> isn't a case for runtime range-checking, so we can forget about
> variant records here. (Variant records are special in this regard --
> I suppose that's to simplify work for compilers that allocate memory
> based on the actual tag value.)

Then we drop mir040[ab].pas, I guess?

The case with constant seems to be already detected at compile time with
my present compiler (20030507). If we need a WRONG test that would keep
this verified, it's not a problem to fix that.

> > > > > Initialization of types, variables and typed constants. (I.e.,
> > > > > variables (or fields) or subrange type with an out-of-range
> > > > > initializer; must be locally, otherwise GPC won't accept
> > > > > non-constants initializers.)
> >
> > Done. mir041[ceil][ul].pas
>
> These are for variables. Please add a few (not all combinations) for
> constants and type intializers.

Err, I tried but I've got something illegal. I think I'll need an example
or two on these. (!!!)

> > > > - `Pack', `Unpack' (the index parameter)
> >
> > Done. mir03[56]*.pas
>
> In fact, the ranges of the packed and unpacked array don't have to
> be the same. (I think they could even be completely different types
> such as integer vs. char etc., IIUC what EP says.) The index
> parameter refers to the unpacked array (for both routines), and the
> requirement is only that it can hold the number of elements the
> packed array has, starting from that index. So there can be cases
> where the array fits only partly etc.

Thank you for this explanation.

Doing this I bump more and more into "(Under construction.)" signs in
manual. (-;

> > > > - 4th parameter of `BlockRead', `BlockWrite' (not obvious, but GPC
> > > >   allows a subrange here which may be too small for the actual
> > > >   result)
> >
> > Done. mir039*.pas
>
> I've changed the file name to `.dat' (the Makefile will remove those
> files in the clean targets). I'm adding a note about this in the
> test suite documentation.

Good. Please note that there's a Reset (myF) missing in v0.03 tarball
(Fixed in v0.04 tarball) - alongside this extension modification.

> > Q: What is the legal range for 3rd parm of Val?
>
> It gives 0 for success and the position of the first invalid
> character otherwise.

Done: mir034[cd].pas

Just curious, Val returned 2 and 17 in ec after these two tests
respective. Is that OK?

   Val ('invalid', k, ec);
   Val ('123456789012345invalid', k, ec);

> > > > - `and', `or', `xor', `shl', `shr' used as procedures, e.g., if a is
> > > >   of type 1 .. 10: a := 5; or (a, 8) (whereas normal use as
> > > >   operators will be covered by assignments or whatever is done with
> > > >   them)
> >
> > Done. mir03[0-3]*.pas
>
> I've slightly modified some of them, so the 2nd parameter is still
> in range, but the result is not.
>
> I think I forgot to mention `not' (bitwise, procedure-like).

mir044[ab].pas

> > > > - Conformant arrays (i.e., where the index type in the conformant
> > > >   array in the formal parameter list is a subrange, and the actual
> > > >   parameter's range is too big -- check both bounds)
> >
> > Integer subrange Done. Problems with Char and enumerated subranges.
> > I can confirm that it gives me this error:
> >
> > TEST    mir038ea.pas:   ./mir038ea.pas: In main program:
> > ./mir038ea.pas:29: invalid operands to binary `+'
>
> This should be fixed in the next release.
>
> There is, however, an error (and the next GPC will give a better
> message). The formal array index is integer and the actual index is
> enum.

Yes, I've fixed it (mir038e?.pas).

This case is an indicator to me that as many as possible combinations
(types, ranges etc.) ought to be tested, for otherwise this example is no
difference with character lbound..ubound than the integer ones.

> Since I've made slight changes, please send me only new/updated
> files next time.

OK, they're in v0.04 tarball mentioned above.

> > At my side they are of course all "failed". It would be reassuring
> > if I get a confirmation that on range-checking compiler they
> > all pass "OK".
>
> I'll let you know if not when I'll have implemented range-checking.
> (Otherwise you'll see for yourself, since the tests will then be in
> the test suite, and a release will probably be done soon after.)

Since I'm doing tests, I would benefit from having builds pre-release. But
only if this is not additional trouble to you.

Mirsad

Vorige Mail   Nächste Mail   Unformatiert/Volle Header
Übersicht  10 Tage   Betreff   Datum   Thread   Autor  

Antworten auf diese Mail

Antwort auf

Zurück zur Archiv-Hauptseite

Hinweis: Diese Seite enthält Informationen, die nicht vom Betreiber dieser Website, sondern von den Autoren der archivierten Mails stammen. Der Betreiber dieser Website ist nicht für den Inhalt dieser Informationen verantwortlich. Die weitere Verwendung dieser Informationen bedarf des Einverständnisses des jeweiligen Autors.

Sofern WWW-Adressen (URLs) in den archivierten Mails als Hyperlinks hervorgehoben werden, so geschieht dies ausschließlich zur Annehmlichkeit für den Leser. Der Inhalt der auf diese Weise angelinkten Webseiten spiegelt nicht notwendigerweise die Meinung des Betreibers dieser Webseite oder der Autoren der archivierten Mails wider. Der Betreiber dieser Webseite ist nicht für den Inhalt solcher Webseiten verantwortlich. Diese Seiten sind ausdrücklich nicht als Teil des Inhalts dieser Seite zu betrachten, sondern lediglich als Referenzen.

Diese Seite wurde erzeugt von Crystal 0.999 (Linux 2.4.27/i686).