I have posted ISO 7185 compliance data for GPC on my web site:
http://www.moorecad.com/standardpascal/compiler.html
I welcome any comments or corrections you might have.
In addition, there is a section for the "makers comments" (I can't say "vendor" because some compilers are free :).
If you wish for me to add your commentary for this section, please send it to me.
On Tue, 23 Mar 2004, Scott Moore wrote:
I have posted ISO 7185 compliance data for GPC on my web site:
http://www.moorecad.com/standardpascal/compiler.html
I welcome any comments or corrections you might have.
In addition, there is a section for the "makers comments" (I can't say "vendor" because some compilers are free :).
If you wish for me to add your commentary for this section, please send it to me.
Why don't I stick my neck out real far...
Not so sure that "vendor" doesn't apply to developers of free software; indeed, FSF founder Richard Stallman has suggested that free (as in open source) software should be sold for whatever the market will bear, with the understanding that the customer may redistribute and/or modify the software under the appropriate license terms. Indeed, the FSF does actually sell distributions of GNU software for substantial amounts of money (check their website). Sounds like the FSF qualifies as a "vendor" even under the strictest construction of the term.
In practice, however, I think "developer" is preferable to either "maker" or "vendor".
Now, I think I'll go back to lurking...
-------------------------| John L. Ries | Salford Systems | Phone: (619)543-8880 x25 | (760)765-4738 | Cell: (760)445-6122 | -------------------------
Scott Moore wrote:
I have posted ISO 7185 compliance data for GPC on my web site:
http://www.moorecad.com/standardpascal/compiler.html
I welcome any comments or corrections you might have.
In addition, there is a section for the "makers comments" (I can't say "vendor" because some compilers are free :).
If you wish for me to add your commentary for this section, please send it to me.
Just to minor comments:
: GPC, the freeware Pascal compiler based on GCC.
I don't like the term "freeware" because it's often used to refer to software that must be distributed for free (in the monetary sense), but without any freedoms of modification etc., often even without source provided, i.e. just the opposite of GPC. I'd prefer the term "free software" (or "open source" if you must).
: GCC obeys ISO 7185,
In this context "GPC" might be clearer than "GCC".
Frank
I'll make the changes, thanks for the input.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Frank Heckenbach" ih8mj@fjf.gnu.de To: gpc@gnu.de Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2004 6:06 AM Subject: Re: GPC ISO 7185 compliance data
Scott Moore wrote:
I have posted ISO 7185 compliance data for GPC on my web site:
http://www.moorecad.com/standardpascal/compiler.html
I welcome any comments or corrections you might have.
In addition, there is a section for the "makers comments" (I can't say "vendor" because some compilers are free :).
If you wish for me to add your commentary for this section, please send it to me.
Just to minor comments:
: GPC, the freeware Pascal compiler based on GCC.
I don't like the term "freeware" because it's often used to refer to software that must be distributed for free (in the monetary sense), but without any freedoms of modification etc., often even without source provided, i.e. just the opposite of GPC. I'd prefer the term "free software" (or "open source" if you must).
: GCC obeys ISO 7185,
In this context "GPC" might be clearer than "GCC".
Frank
-- Frank Heckenbach, frank@g-n-u.de, http://fjf.gnu.de/, 7977168E GPC To-Do list, latest features, fixed bugs: http://www.gnu-pascal.de/todo.html GPC download signing key: 51FF C1F0 1A77 C6C2 4482 4DDC 117A 9773 7F88 1707
----- Original Message ----- From: "Frank Heckenbach" ih8mj@fjf.gnu.de To: gpc@gnu.de Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2004 6:06 AM Subject: Re: GPC ISO 7185 compliance data
Scott Moore wrote:
I have posted ISO 7185 compliance data for GPC on my web site:
http://www.moorecad.com/standardpascal/compiler.html
I welcome any comments or corrections you might have.
In addition, there is a section for the "makers comments" (I can't say "vendor" because some compilers are free :).
If you wish for me to add your commentary for this section, please send it to me.
Just to minor comments:
: GPC, the freeware Pascal compiler based on GCC.
I don't like the term "freeware" because it's often used to refer to software that must be distributed for free (in the monetary sense), but without any freedoms of modification etc., often even without source provided, i.e. just the opposite of GPC. I'd prefer the term "free software" (or "open source" if you must).
: GCC obeys ISO 7185,
In this context "GPC" might be clearer than "GCC".
Frank
Made changes listed above.
I can't interest you in supplying any comments for the "originator comments" field in the "Verified compilers" section ? It was intended that you would have the opportunity to rebut anything I said, explain problems, or add other comments.
Scott Moore wrote:
Made changes listed above.
I can't interest you in supplying any comments for the "originator comments" field in the "Verified compilers" section ? It was intended that you would have the opportunity to rebut anything I said, explain problems, or add other comments.
Since what you wrote is basically all positive, I don't have much opportunity for rebuttal. :-)
I could point out that the MaxInt value and default field widths can depend on the processor type and dialect options, but since you stated the processor type and it's clear from the context that it's referring to ISO 7185 mode, it may not be relevant to mention this.
: 2. The ISO 7185 Version of Pascal-s compiled sucessfully and ran a : small program. However,. it failed to run the test suite for : Pascal-s. I plan to determine why this occurred as time permits.
Of course, I can't tell what's going wrong here. It may or may not be a GPC bug ...
: [...] heard from other sources that have familiarity with the BSO : test that it has several gaps in ISO 7185 coverage.
BTW, how completely do your tests cover ISO 7185? (This is not meant to question the validity of the tests, quite the contrary. How sure can we be of ISO 7185 compliance if GPC will pass your tests?)
Frank
----- Original Message ----- From: "Frank Heckenbach" ih8mj@fjf.gnu.de To: gpc@gnu.de Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2004 10:52 AM Subject: Re: GPC ISO 7185 compliance data
Scott Moore wrote:
Made changes listed above.
I can't interest you in supplying any comments for the "originator comments" field in the "Verified compilers" section ? It was intended that you would have the opportunity to rebut anything I said, explain problems, or add other comments.
Since what you wrote is basically all positive, I don't have much opportunity for rebuttal. :-)
I could point out that the MaxInt value and default field widths can depend on the processor type and dialect options, but since you stated the processor type and it's clear from the context that it's referring to ISO 7185 mode, it may not be relevant to mention this.
: 2. The ISO 7185 Version of Pascal-s compiled sucessfully and ran a : small program. However,. it failed to run the test suite for : Pascal-s. I plan to determine why this occurred as time permits.
Of course, I can't tell what's going wrong here. It may or may not be a GPC bug ...
Pascal-s does run, but the test suite I give it is pretty complete, and apparently has found a corner case. It runs on other ISO 7185 Pascal implementations. Its probally not fair that I mention it, but right now I just don't have the time to track it down. However, I will get to it and let you all know what is going on.
: [...] heard from other sources that have familiarity with the BSO : test that it has several gaps in ISO 7185 coverage.
BTW, how completely do your tests cover ISO 7185? (This is not meant to question the validity of the tests, quite the contrary. How sure can we be of ISO 7185 compliance if GPC will pass your tests?)
Frank
There's probally no real good answer to that question. The test is about 13 years old now, and incorporates all the ISO questions that have come up (in comp.lang.pascal.ansi-iso, for example). It is a "positive" test, meaning that it performs no checking on if invalid programs or program structures are flagged, and it performs little or no "stress" type tests, like checking how many nested structures can be handled, etc.
In my own experience, with IP Pascal, the test was run, and then several more bugs were found after having sucessfully run the ISO 7185 test and proceeding to compile various large programs (like the compiler itself). These bugs were divided into bugs due to IP Pascal extentions to the standard, and "corner" cases, such as performing an operation in such a way as to trip an optimization that was not correct. I have never seen an ISO 7185 construct go unchecked by the test suite, but thats by definition. If I were to find such a thing, it would go into the test suite. So far, however, the test suite has always been ahead of the programs I write in terms of the ISO features used.
The BSO tests are supposed to be very good at negative testing, ie, they apparently evaluate how good the compiler is at rejecting bad constructs. My ISO tests are very weak at this.
I have been trying, for years in fact, to get an agreement going with Tony Heathrington of Prospero software. They aquired the rights to the BSO test suite, and Tony has been talking for years about giving better price terms now that the BSO test is no longer "mainstream". I would personally like IP Pascal to pass the BSO tests as well, and I think that would be a good goal for GPC. I think you might be able to get that for free considering the nature of GPC, with proper garantees that you won't distribute it.
However, Prospero is not answering their email, and I fear they may be going down for the count.
-- Frank Heckenbach, frank@g-n-u.de, http://fjf.gnu.de/, 7977168E GPC To-Do list, latest features, fixed bugs: http://www.gnu-pascal.de/todo.html GPC download signing key: 51FF C1F0 1A77 C6C2 4482 4DDC 117A 9773 7F88 1707
Scott Moore wrote:
... snip ...
The BSO tests are supposed to be very good at negative testing, ie, they apparently evaluate how good the compiler is at rejecting bad constructs. My ISO tests are very weak at this.
I have been trying, for years in fact, to get an agreement going with Tony Heathrington of Prospero software. They aquired the rights to the BSO test suite, and Tony has been talking for years about giving better price terms now that the BSO test is no longer "mainstream". I would personally like IP Pascal to pass the BSO tests as well, and I think that would be a good goal for GPC. I think you might be able to get that for free considering the nature of GPC, with proper garantees that you won't distribute it.
However, Prospero is not answering their email, and I fear they may be going down for the count.
I have always been rather bitter about this. Those tests were developed and contributed by a cooperative group in the days before issuance of the first standard, and were basically created by examining a section of the draft and devising compliance tests. They were then available for the cost of reproduction, which meant a mag tape back then. When the standard appeared they were revised to match. Tests are numbered to match the standard.
A summary of results on PascalP are recorded in the PascalP manual, available on my site.
The (in my mind) selfish attitude has gained Prospero nothing, and has done a great deal of harm.
----- Original Message ----- From: "CBFalconer" cbfalconer@yahoo.com To: gpc@gnu.de Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2004 3:53 AM Subject: Re: GPC ISO 7185 compliance data
Scott Moore wrote:
... snip ...
The BSO tests are supposed to be very good at negative testing, ie, they apparently evaluate how good the compiler is at rejecting bad constructs. My ISO tests are very weak at this.
I have been trying, for years in fact, to get an agreement going with Tony Heathrington of Prospero software. They aquired the rights to the BSO test suite, and Tony has been talking for years about giving better price terms now that the BSO test is no longer "mainstream". I would personally like IP Pascal to pass the BSO tests as well, and I think that would be a good goal for GPC. I think you might be able to get that for free considering the nature of GPC, with proper garantees that you won't distribute it.
However, Prospero is not answering their email, and I fear they may be going down for the count.
I have always been rather bitter about this. Those tests were developed and contributed by a cooperative group in the days before issuance of the first standard, and were basically created by examining a section of the draft and devising compliance tests. They were then available for the cost of reproduction, which meant a mag tape back then. When the standard appeared they were revised to match. Tests are numbered to match the standard.
A summary of results on PascalP are recorded in the PascalP manual, available on my site.
The (in my mind) selfish attitude has gained Prospero nothing, and has done a great deal of harm.
While I am sure the origins of this are true, it was the BSO's idea to charge for the tests. The BSO decommissioned the tests, and handed it over to Prospero, and they have already announced their intent to make the test available on reasonable terms (see their web site).
Tony Heathrington is a very nice guy, I have been dealing with him for 15 years or more now, and he has always been very reasonable.
What say we try to deal with him, and Prospero now on a positive basis and save the name calling for another day.
Scott Moore wrote:
From: "CBFalconer" cbfalconer@yahoo.com
Scott Moore wrote:
... snip ...
The BSO tests are supposed to be very good at negative testing, ie, they apparently evaluate how good the compiler is at rejecting bad constructs. My ISO tests are very weak at this.
I have been trying, for years in fact, to get an agreement going with Tony Heathrington of Prospero software. They aquired the rights to the BSO test suite, and Tony has been talking for years about giving better price terms now that the BSO test is no longer "mainstream". I would personally like IP Pascal to pass the BSO tests as well, and I think that would be a good goal for GPC. I think you might be able to get that for free considering the nature of GPC, with proper garantees that you won't distribute it.
However, Prospero is not answering their email, and I fear they may be going down for the count.
I have always been rather bitter about this. Those tests were developed and contributed by a cooperative group in the days before issuance of the first standard, and were basically created by examining a section of the draft and devising compliance tests. They were then available for the cost of reproduction, which meant a mag tape back then. When the standard appeared they were revised to match. Tests are numbered to match the standard.
A summary of results on PascalP are recorded in the PascalP manual, available on my site.
The (in my mind) selfish attitude has gained Prospero nothing, and has done a great deal of harm.
While I am sure the origins of this are true, it was the BSO's idea to charge for the tests. The BSO decommissioned the tests, and handed it over to Prospero, and they have already announced their intent to make the test available on reasonable terms (see their web site).
Tony Heathrington is a very nice guy, I have been dealing with him for 15 years or more now, and he has always been very reasonable.
What say we try to deal with him, and Prospero now on a positive basis and save the name calling for another day.
He may well be, but I have no experience. Over a year ago I heard something similar (maybe from you) and enquired of them via e-mail (which I think was the only option available from their pages). I had no reply. The suite should be put in the public domain, or at least open-sourced.
BTW, please do not reply both to me directly and to the mailing list. The list should be used unless there is some reason to keep things private.
On Fri, 9 Apr 2004, CBFalconer wrote:
-- A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
I'm still laughing about this one...
On the other hand, though, one does not necessarily want to read the whole conversation before seeing the response (but the point is well taken).
-------------------------| John L. Ries | Salford Systems | Phone: (619)543-8880 x25 | (760)765-4738 | Cell: (760)445-6122 | -------------------------
John L. Ries wrote:
On Fri, 9 Apr 2004, CBFalconer wrote:
A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
I'm still laughing about this one...
On the other hand, though, one does not necessarily want to read the whole conversation before seeing the response (but the point is well taken).
Of course not, but one can easily jump at the end of the quotes. That's why what I find even more annoying is when people insert comments in the quoted parts without removing the `>' (or whatever) signs. Fortunately only few do this ...
Frank
-
CBFalconer -
Frank Heckenbach -
John L. Ries -
Scott Moore