Gpc

gpc@gnu.de

5400 discussions

Re: Errors and Standards (was: compiler bug)
by da Silva, Joe 18 Oct '01

18 Oct '01

Correct. Conformant arrays are optional, so that isn't the *real* change to the language ... It is this : When you have a procedure or function (A), as a formal parameter of another procedure or function (B), you must declare it's (A) formal parameters (as shown in example 6 in section 6.11.6 of ISO-10206; there's probably a similar example given in ISO-7185, although haven't looked for it). This (declaring the formal parameter of a formal parameter ;-) wasn't required in the original language definition, in the "User Manual and Report". "Otherwise" was a common and useful extension to the language, but *non-standard*, prior to ISO-10206 (of course, Borland recycled the word "else", just to be different!). Joe. > -----Original Message----- > From: Frank Heckenbach [SMTP:frank@g-n-u.de] > Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2001 7:43 AM > To: cbfalconer(a)worldnet.att.net; gpc(a)gnu.de > Subject: Re: Errors and Standards (was: compiler bug) > > CBFalconer wrote: > > > > > "Classic" is a perfect description of ISO-7185 (thanks, > Prospero), > > > > since it corresponds exactly (well, with just one change, > suggested > > > > by Wirth) to the language originally defined in the 'User > Manual > > > > and Report' published by Jensen and Wirth, in 1974. > > > > > > What is this one change, BTW? > > > > Conformant arrays. Also some tightening up. The existance of any > > change was a big battle between the US and the world, circa 1980, > > resulting in level 0 and level 1 as a compromise. OTHERWISE was > > in the earlier drafts too. > > Conformant arrays are the only difference between 7185 level 0 and > 1, aren't they? So level 0 is completely equivalent to original > Wirth Pascal? Or did Wirth Pascal contain `otherwise'? > > Frank > > -- > Frank Heckenbach, frank(a)g-n-u.de, http://fjf.gnu.de/ > GPC To-Do list, latest features, fixed bugs: > http://agnes.dida.physik.uni-essen.de/~gnu-pascal/todo.html

3 2

Re: compiler bug
by da Silva, Joe 18 Oct '01

18 Oct '01

Please see below ... Joe. > -----Original Message----- > From: Frank Heckenbach [SMTP:frank@g-n-u.de] > Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2001 9:28 PM > To: cbfalconer(a)worldnet.att.net; gpc(a)gnu.de > Subject: Re: compiler bug > > CBFalconer wrote: > > > I vote against any such sweeping change. It is enough to say the > > --standard-pascal refers to ISO-1. > > Opinions seem to be divided on what to do. Until and unless there's > an agreement, I'll do nothing about it. ;-) > [Joe da Silva] The best approach, as someone here suggested, is to first introduce a new flag, such as "--classic-pascal", which is equivalent to the present flag "--standard-pascal" flag, with the recommendation to use this new flag to specify ISO-7185. This way, we are no longer (strongly) inferring that ISO-7185 is the only standard. Later, if most people have adopted the new flag, we can drop the old flag or give a warning that the flag is ambiguous. In any case, we can definitely do the first part of this change without adversely affecting anyone, so I see no reason not to proceed at least that far. > > What is the status of the Extended Pascal (10206) standard? Is it > > an official standard, or in the proposed state. I just downloaded > > the postscript version, and that is a monster to handle on this > > machine. Ghostview takes forever, can't backup, etc. > > Yep, they removed the PostScript DSC comments, apparently for no > good reason. I'm probably not allow to distribute a version with > them added again, but the attached script (requires bash and GNU > awk) will do it on your local copy). This will allow gs to backup > and to jump to arbitrary pages. > > > I haven't even the vaguest idea of how to talk to the printer. It > > is a Samsung Laser, which comes with drivers, but not a word about > > the interface at the plug. Can it accept postscript (which is > > really text)? I don't know, but I doubt it. Can it accept text > > with terminal cr/lf, I don't know. Are there ESC sequences to do > > whatever? I still don't know. I can't even find anything from > > their website - it rejected any attempts to download anything > > midway for unknown reasons. Multiple times. Bah humbug. > > > > Compilers are nice and simple. They have a gozinta and a > > comesouta. > > Yeah, I know this problem. Most modern printers (except PostScript > printers which are quite a bit more expensive) have a proprietary > interface and only come with a Windoze driver (and if you're lucky, > a Linux driver), but no documentation of the interface ... > [Joe da Silva] Yes, it's very annoying! Obviously, there aren't enough of us "bugging" the printer manufacturers for this information, so we should pester them some more! On a more positive note, I think a lot of these printers tend to emulate "industry standard" printers/protocols, such as PCL (Hewlett Packard). Since these major printer protocols are "published", you can experiment with these, to see if your particular printer understands them, and to what extent. Not an ideal solution, but sometimes worthwhile. > Frank > > -- > Frank Heckenbach, frank(a)g-n-u.de, http://fjf.gnu.de/ > GPC To-Do list, latest features, fixed bugs: > http://agnes.dida.physik.uni-essen.de/~gnu-pascal/todo.html << File: > ps2dsc >>

2 1

FW: Errors and Standards (was: compiler bug)
by da Silva, Joe 18 Oct '01

18 Oct '01

Oops! Forgot to "fiddle" the send address again ... :-/ > -----Original Message----- > From: da Silva, Joe > Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2001 2:25 PM > To: 'J. David Bryan' > Subject: RE: Errors and Standards (was: compiler bug) > > Such systems as mentioned below, are non-compliant (which is > not surprising I guess, since it took such a long time for the first > official standard to be published). > > Any system that needs to use standard output for reporting errors, > needs to take care of such details transparently, just like systems > which have a separate "output channel" for errors (since there is > no requirement for the programmer to initialize this either, nor any > defined way to do so). > > Joe. > > -----Original Message----- > From: J. David Bryan [SMTP:dbryan@bcpl.net] > Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2001 3:53 AM > To: GNU Pascal List > Subject: Re: Errors and Standards (was: compiler bug) > > On 17 Oct 2001, at 10:32, da Silva, Joe wrote: > > > ...Peter Grogono (in his book 'Programming in Pascal') says words to the > > effect of.... > > Regrettably, though, books are not proof but at best only supporting > evidence. Grinding through the standard is the only way to be sure. > > Grogono also notes in section 7.1, "Sequential files," that: > > "Some Pascal systems also insist that the standard file 'output' is > mentioned in the program heading even if the program contains no call > to write, so that there is a destination for error messages." > > -- Dave

1 0

compiler bug
by Theo Carr-Brion 17 Oct '01

17 Oct '01

I am using gpc 20010924 with gcc 2.95.3 on UnixWare 7.1 and the following code does not work. Program Test(Input, Output); Type Str10 = String(10); LetterType = (AA, BB, CC, DD); MyRec = record LetterName: Array[LetterType] of Str10; end; procedure SetIt(var aStr1: String; const aStr2: String); begin aStr1:=aStr2; end; var ThisLetter: LetterType; ThisRec: MyRec; begin for ThisLetter:=AA to DD do SetIt(ThisRec.LetterName[ThisLetter], Chr(Ord(ThisLetter)+Ord('A'))); for ThisLetter:=AA to DD do WriteLn(ThisRec.letterName[ThisLetter]); for ThisLetter:=AA to DD do ThisRec.LetterName[ThisLetter]:=Chr(Ord(ThisLetter)+Ord('A')); for ThisLetter:=AA to DD do WriteLn(ThisRec.LetterName[ThisLetter]); end. The first set of WriteLn commands prints out A and B and then spaces. The second set prints out A to D as expected. Theo Carr-Brion

7 36

Re: Obscure error message
by Theo Carr-Brion 17 Oct '01

17 Oct '01

I was using --stack-checking and turning it off cures the problem, thanks. I am not using optimisation as I was fast compilation times and adding dummy variables did not work so it looks like the problem is in the stack checking. Theo Carr-Brion -----Original Message----- From: J. David Bryan [mailto:dbryan@bcpl.net] Sent: 16 October 2001 19:55 To: GNU Pascal List Subject: Re: Obscure error message On 15 Oct 2001, at 10:42, Theo Carr-Brion wrote: > Compiling some of our software with gpc 20010924 I get the following error > message: > > label `10' used before containing binding contour > > Can anyone explain to me what it means, please? -- Dave

3 2

gpc bug found
by Andrew Makhorin 17 Oct '01

17 Oct '01

Hi, It seems I found a bug in gpc. If I try compiling a Pascal program (see the attachment), something like this appears: /tmp/cc4P4VfS.s: Assembler messages: /tmp/cc4P4VfS.s:17865: Error: suffix or operands invalid for `mov' I use Debian GNU/Linux 2.2 and gpc version 19991030 on Intel PC. Andrew Makhorin

3 2

question on gcc version
by Oldham, Adam 17 Oct '01

17 Oct '01

Hello, I have been off the list for a few months. But had a quick question that I am sure has been asked by now. Is GPC compatible with gcc 2.96 or 3.0? Or must I downgrade to gcc 2.95.x to get it to compile correctly? Also, is there a web site that contains a list of archived post to the list? Thanks, Adam ----------------------------------------------------------------------- C. Adam Oldham Marconi Commerce Systems Inc. Software Engineer 7300 West Friendly Ave. adam.oldham(a)marconi.com Greensboro, NC 27420-2087 Phone : 336.547.5952 Fax : 336.547.5079 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- This document contains confidential information of Marconi Commerce Systems Inc. In consideration of the receipt of this document, the recipient agrees not to reproduce, copy, use or transmit this document and/or the information contained herein, in whole or in part, or to suffer such actions by others, for any purpose except with written permission, first obtained, of Marconi Commerce Systems Inc., and further agrees to surrender the same to Marconi Commerce Systems Inc. upon demand. -----------------------------------------------------------------------

3 2

Re: standards, responses to list (was: compiler bug)
by da Silva, Joe 17 Oct '01

17 Oct '01

Well, the discussion on declaration of "output" has probably been adequately covered (the answer to which is, of course, that it's only required if standard output is used, explicitly or implicitly. Since "internal" error messages are often handled separately on many (most?) OSes, these aren't an implicit use of "standard output"). For anyone interested, declaration of "output" has two effects - it automatically declares the text file variable "output" and it issues a "rewrite" (according to Kathleen and Niklaus;-). As for "out-of-order declarations", these ARE permitted by ISO standard ISO-10206 (aka. Extended Pascal). BTW, I too, disagree with the way that responses to list messages are normally directed to the originator, rather than the list. Maybe if we all share this opinion, we can persuade whoever is responsible to change this? Joe. > -----Original Message----- > From: CBFalconer [SMTP:cbfalconer@yahoo.com] > Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2001 4:38 AM > To: J. David Bryan; gpc mail-list > Subject: Re: compiler bug > > "J. David Bryan" wrote: > > > > On 11 Oct 2001, at 18:59, CBFalconer wrote: > > > ... snip ... > > > > I believe that generally it would be most helpful to the GPC maintainers > if > > you could separate into the smallest complete programs each of the > missed > > syntax errors you noted (i.e., create the smallest possible test case > for > > each reported problem). For example, the first error appears to be > caused > > by an out-of-order declaration, so: > > > > program t1; > > > > procedure p; > > begin > > end; > > > > var x: integer; > > > > begin > > end. > > > > ...should do it. Your help in improving the quality of GPC will be > > appreciated. > > Your sample above has two faults. It should specify at least > (output) in the command line, and it has the illegal declaration > portion. Both of which are minor, but contrary to strict > standards. PascalP has a flag to allow some of the out-of-order > declarations. So: > ------ snip ------

4 3

Re: compiler bug
by da Silva, Joe 17 Oct '01

17 Oct '01

Please see below ... Joe. > -----Original Message----- > From: Frank Heckenbach [SMTP:frank@g-n-u.de] > Sent: Monday, October 15, 2001 9:50 AM > To: cbfalconer(a)worldnet.att.net; gpc(a)gnu.de > Subject: Re: compiler bug > > I'm replying to several mails at once ... > ------ snip ------ > CBFalconer wrote: > ------ snip ------ > > PROGRAM testnn1; > > > > BEGIN > > writeln('Testnn fails to detect lack of output file parameter'); > > (* here is needed a way to return a status *) > > (* which is missing from ISO Pascal *) > > (* PascalP uses "terminate(integer)" extension *) > > END. > > This produces a warning with `gpc --standard-pascal'. If you want it > to be an error, add `-Werror'. > [Joe da Silva] Clearly, "output" IS being used by this program, so the fact that it's missing as a parameter of the program, is clearly an error (unless of course, you are compiling to the Borland dialect). If GPC can deal with this (which AFAIK it can), then it's a "non-fatal" error. IMHO, a warning should result only when something is "suspicious", rather than when something is clearly erroneous, as in this example. > > PROGRAM testnn2(output); > > > > CONST > > a = 1; > > > > TYPE > > b = integer; > > > > CONST > > c = 2; > > > > BEGIN > > writeln('Failure to detect misordered declarations'); > > END. > > I'm putting it in the test suite (chuck1.pas), so we can fix it > sometime. (Though I must admit that the priority isn't very high, at > least for me, since I don't program in plain SP myself, and see such > restrictions as rather limiting -- mixing declaration blocks allows > for more "topic oriented" structuring. But, of course, to be really > conformant, GPC must detect this in the future.) > [Joe da Silva] What do you consider "Standard"??? As far as I'm concerned, ISO-10206 is the standard to which GPC aspires, so why should GPC regard the above as an error, when this is clearly permitted by ISO-10206. IMHO, ISO-7185 should not be regarded as if it's the one and only Pascal standard. Prospero call this version of the language "Classic Pascal", to distinguish it from "Extended Pascal". I like that idea. I don't think it helps Pascal's image to always refer to ISO-7185 as THE Pascal standard, since this gives the impression of a very restricted and limited language, which is not something that Pascal deserves. I think we should promote the ISO-10206 standard, not pretend there is only one Pascal standard. (Rant over ;-)

5 8

Re: compiler bug
by da Silva, Joe 17 Oct '01

17 Oct '01

Please see below ... Joe. > -----Original Message----- > From: CBFalconer [SMTP:cbfalconer@yahoo.com] > Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2001 9:03 AM > To: gpc mail-list > Subject: Re: compiler bug > ------ snip ------ > What is the status of the Extended Pascal (10206) standard? Is it > an official standard, or in the proposed state. I just downloaded > [Joe da Silva] It's official, of course, since 1991 (one year after ISO-7185). If you want to actually buy an official copy, see your local standards supplier (note that many countries have a "local" version of this standard, eg. in Australia, it's AS-3981). > the postscript version, and that is a monster to handle on this > machine. Ghostview takes forever, can't backup, etc. Does anyone > have a version converted to text? > > -- > Chuck F (cbfalconer(a)yahoo.com) (cbfalconer(a)XXXXworldnet.att.net) > Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems. > (Remove "XXXX" from reply address. yahoo works unmodified) > mailto:uce@ftc.gov (for spambots to harvest) > >

1 0

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

1996

1995

Gpc