Here are a few random things I've spotted from a recent round of programming in GPC. (BTW - I know macros aren't part of Pascal, but they are useful, especially if you are porting code to/from C). Excuse me if any of these overlap with things previously covered - I haven't been following the list as I'm too busy of late.
Debugging:
If your source code is in multiple source files as units (or modules? - I've only tested for units), there is no need to specify the source filename as the GDB man pages suggest (e.g. break is defined as 'break [file:]function'). Just give the function/procedure name. Don't forget to make the first letter of the procedure/function identifier in uppercase - gpc adopts this (odd!) convention to avoid name-space conflicts with C and system libraries.
Might be worth adding this to the docs - ?
In my hands Exit doesn't seem to so much terminate the program as the proc/fn or the unit. Haven't tested this - I just gave up using it - but it certainly isn't stopping the program. (!)
It would be good to see a more sensible error message generated when the compiler detects a missing parameter in the interface vs. implementation definitions of a proc/fn, e.g.
if you have:
interface
function string_eq( str1, str2 : string; ) : boolean ;
implementation
function string_eq( str1, str2 : string; caseSensitive : boolean ): boolean ; begin ... end ;
You get
undeclared identifier `caseSensitive' (first use in this routine)
rather than some sort of interface/implementation definition mis-match error. Its *very* confusing if you're down in the body of the unit looking at the source code for the function itself as its certainly present there and there is nothing to clue you into looking at the interface definition.
If you do a rewrite() or reset(), do nothing with the file, but forget to close the file(s) before ending the program, malloc complains about a "deallocation of a pointer not yet allocated". I presume the post-execution mop-up doesn't handle unused files well -- ?
Reset() and rewrite() insist on the buffer size parameter rather than defaulting if an untyped file is used. OK, you can just set it to 1, but its not consistent with the definition of the procedures in the docs which indicate [to me!] that this is optional.
Macro expansion of __FILE__ seems to be inconsistent. In cases it expands to a full path and in others to just the local filename. It seems to be that if the file is in the local directory compared to the main program being compiled, just the filename is returned; if the source file is in another directory, a full path is returned.
While there is a CurrentRoutineName there is no CurrentUnitName. It'd be useful to have this for debugging writes, to indicate which source file to look for a routine in.
[Fussy one] Macros can't do C99's #define many_arg_fn(...) some_fn( __VA_ARGS__ ) trick. The GNU C compiler does support this & its very useful for debugging writes (which, in turn, are useful for test-driven development).
Just keeping you on your toes ;-)
Grant
Grant Jacobs wrote:
Debugging:
If your source code is in multiple source files as units (or modules?
- I've only tested for units), there is no need to specify the source
filename as the GDB man pages suggest (e.g. break is defined as 'break [file:]function'). Just give the function/procedure name.
Did you also try this when, e.g., several implementions define a private routine of the same name?
In my hands Exit doesn't seem to so much terminate the program as the proc/fn or the unit. Haven't tested this - I just gave up using it - but it certainly isn't stopping the program. (!)
No, it isn't. Why do you think it should? `Exit' is BP compatible. To stop the program use `Halt'.
It would be good to see a more sensible error message generated when the compiler detects a missing parameter in the interface vs. implementation definitions of a proc/fn, e.g.
if you have:
interface
function string_eq( str1, str2 : string; ) : boolean ;
implementation
function string_eq( str1, str2 : string; caseSensitive : boolean ): boolean ; begin ... end ;
You get
undeclared identifier `caseSensitive' (first use in this routine)
Well, what *I* (since you say "you" ;-) actually get (after filling in the missing parts and fixing the obvious syntax error) is this:
routine definition does not match previous declaration -> previous declaration
If you use `caseSensitive' within the body of `string_eq' (which you didn't show in the `...') you might get that other message because the second (wrong) redeclaration of the function is ignored, but the first error message is the important one. If you don't get this, please report with a full example (compilable code, compiler version, etc., as usual).
If you do a rewrite() or reset(), do nothing with the file, but forget to close the file(s) before ending the program, malloc complains about a "deallocation of a pointer not yet allocated". I presume the post-execution mop-up doesn't handle unused files well -- ?
Again, *I* don't. A testing example (see above) would really help.
Reset() and rewrite() insist on the buffer size parameter rather than defaulting if an untyped file is used. OK, you can just set it to 1, but its not consistent with the definition of the procedures in the docs which indicate [to me!] that this is optional.
From the docs:
: The last optional parameter determines the block size of the file. : It is valid only for untyped files. Often 1 is a reasonable value here. : However, the existence of this parameter is a BP compatibility feature, : and in BP it defaults to 128 because of historic misdesign. Therefore, : GPC requires this parameter to be present. In `--borland-pascal' mode, : it makes it optional (like BP does), but warns about the strange : default if omitted.
Macro expansion of __FILE__ seems to be inconsistent. In cases it expands to a full path and in others to just the local filename. It seems to be that if the file is in the local directory compared to the main program being compiled, just the filename is returned; if the source file is in another directory, a full path is returned.
What do you suggest? Always a full path?
While there is a CurrentRoutineName there is no CurrentUnitName. It'd be useful to have this for debugging writes, to indicate which source file to look for a routine in.
For this purpose __FILE__ would seem more useful (think of include files), I think.
[Fussy one] Macros can't do C99's #define many_arg_fn(...) some_fn( __VA_ARGS__ ) trick. The GNU C compiler does support this & its very useful for debugging writes (which, in turn, are useful for test-driven development).
I plan to rewrite the preprocessor, and deal with macro facilities in this course. For one thing, I'll surely not try hard to be C compatible (e.g., I plan to replace that `##' stuff with something more readable). I haven't had varargs macros on my list so far, but I might consider them. Any other comments? If debugging writes are the only use, I'm not sure they're justified well enough. (But I'd also have to see how hard it is to implement them.)
Frank
-
Frank Heckenbach -
Grant Jacobs