| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| ... | |
| |
|
|
| |
Separate core mu tests from those loaded from the commandline.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This is the one major refinement on the C programming model I'm planning
to introduce in mu. Instead of Rust's menagerie of pointer types and
static checking, I want to introduce just one new type, and use it to
perform ref-counting at runtime.
So far all we're doing is updating new's interface. The actual
ref-counting implementation is next.
One implication: I might sometimes need duplicate implementations for a
recipe with allocated vs vanilla addresses of the same type. So far it
seems I can get away with just always passing in allocated addresses;
the situations when you want to pass an unallocated address to a recipe
should be few and far between.
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
Reorganize layers in preparation for a better, more type-safe
implementation of first-class and higher-order recipes.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The idea is that to-text-line should truncate blindly past some
threshold, even if to-text isn't smart enough to avoid infinite loops.
Maybe I should define a 'truncating buffer' which stops once it fills
up. That would be an easy way to eliminate all infinite loops in
to-text-line.
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
'append' also implicitly calls 'to-text' unless there's a better
variant.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This is happening because of our recent generic changes, which trigger
some post-processing transforms on all recipes even if we processed them
before. We could clear 'interactive' inside 'reload' to avoid this, but
random 'run' blocks in scenarios can still pick up errors from sandboxes
earlier in a scenario. The right place to clear the 'interactive' recipe
is right after we use it, in run_code_end().
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
Another gotcha uncovered in the process of sorting out the previous
commit: I keep using eof() but forgetting that there are two other
states an istream can get into. Just never use eof().
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Commands run:
$ sed -i 's/\([^. (]*\)\.find(\([^)]*\)) != [^.]*\.end()/contains_key(\1, \2)/g' 0[^0]*cc
$ sed -i 's/\([^. (]*\)\.find(\([^)]*\)) == [^.]*\.end()/!contains_key(\1, \2)/g' 0[^0]*cc
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
I'm still seeing all sorts of failures in turning on layer 11 of edit/,
so I'm backing away and nailing down every culprit I run into. First up:
stop accidentally inserting empty objects into maps during lookups.
Commands run:
$ sed -i 's/\(Recipe_ordinal\|Recipe\|Type_ordinal\|Type\|Memory\)\[\([^]]*\)\] = \(.*\);/put(\1, \2, \3);/' 0[1-9]*
$ vi 075scenario_console.cc # manually fix up Memory[Memory[CONSOLE]]
$ sed -i 's/\(Memory\)\[\([^]]*\)\]/get_or_insert(\1, \2)/' 0[1-9]*
$ sed -i 's/\(Recipe_ordinal\|Type_ordinal\)\[\([^]]*\)\]/get(\1, \2)/' 0[1-9]*
$ sed -i 's/\(Recipe\|Type\)\[\([^]]*\)\]/get(\1, \2)/' 0[1-9]*
Now mu dies pretty quickly because of all the places I try to lookup a
missing value.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
There were several places where we push a call on to a routine without
incrementing call-stack depth, which was used to compute the depth at
which to trace an instruction. So sometimes you ended up one depth lower
than you started a call with. Do this enough times and instructions that
should be traced at level 100 end up at level 0 and pop up as errors.
Solution: since call-stack depth is only used for tracing, include it in
the trace stream and make sure we reset it along with the trace stream.
Then catch all places where we forget to increment call-stack depth and
make sure we catch such places in the future.
When I first ran into this with Caleb I thought there must be some way
that we're writing some output into the warnings result. I didn't
recognize that the spurious output as part of the trace, just at the
wrong level.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
At the lowest level I'm reluctantly starting to see the need for errors
that stop the program in its tracks. Only way to avoid memory corruption
and security issues. But beyond that core I still want to be as lenient
as possible at higher levels of abstraction.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Always show recipe name where error occurred. But don't show internal
'interactive' name for sandboxes, that's just confusing.
What started out as warnings are now ossifying into errors that halt all
execution. Is this how things went with C and Unix as well?
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Turns out the default format for printing floating point numbers is
neither 'scientific' nor 'fixed' even though those are the only two
options offered. Reading the C++ standard I found out that the default
(modulo locale changes) is basically the same as the printf "%g" format.
And "%g" is basically the shorter of:
a) %f with trailing zeros trimmed
b) %e
So we'll just do %f and trim trailing zeros.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Finally terminate the experiment of keeping debug prints around. I'm
also going to give up on maintaining counts.
What we really need is two kinds of tracing:
a) For tests, just the domain-specific facts, organized by labels.
b) For debugging, just transient dumps to stdout.
b) only works if stdout is clean by default.
Hmm, I think this means 'stash' should be the transient kind of trace.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
| |
Now we can make use of all the depths from 1 to 99.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
| |
First step to reducing typing burden. Next step: inferring types.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
A couple of times now I've accidentally named a scenario the same thing
as a recipe inside it that I define using 'run' or something. The
resulting infinite loop is invariably non-trivial to debug.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
More verbose, but it saves trouble when debugging; there's never
something you thought should be traced but just never came out the other
end.
Also got rid of fatal errors entirely. Everything's a warning now, and
code after a warning isn't guaranteed to run.
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
Debugging simulated-screen support is taking too long, and I suddenly
have a few higher priorities.
|
| |
|
|
| |
I'm writing to location 'screen' somehow that's not the raw location.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Ah, I was indeed double-rendering, but somehow it was still hard to see
the problem past that preliminary diagnosis.
Still two failing tests to fix.
|
| |
|
|
| |
$ ./mu test run-instruction-and-print-warnings
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Still ugly as hell. Some tests failing, but they're most likely
wrong. We need to test cursor positioning at the level of the
environment and take it away from the responsibilities of individual
editors. Also bring back the line at the bottom of each editor.
The non-test run ('main' in edit.mu) is completely borked. Sluggish as
hell, and I can't seem to switch focus to the sandbox editor.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
We will need many other forms of isolation for these. For starters we're
going to have to replace most asserts with warnings that can be traced
so that the environment doesn't crash because of illegal code typed into
it.
New test is still failing. Just getting it to fail right was hard
enough.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
It comes up pretty early in the codebase, but hopefully won't come up
in the mu level until we get to higher-order recipes. Potentially
intimidating name, but such prime real estate with no confusing
overloadings in other projects!
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
Requires better support for special variable names in scenarios like
'screen' and 'console'.
|
| |
|
|
| |
For starters start making the test fail when building until layer 41.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
repl.mu now passing again. But still I have concerns:
a) Doubling backslashes in tests. Hard to tell how many levels to add.
b) I think the read-key interface needs to go. But then how do we handle
send-keys-to-channel and other flows like that in the chessboard app?
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
chessboard finally passing all its tests. What made this hard was that
for some reason one of the background routines in the main chessboard
test wasn't terminating like it used to. And so it was polluting *later*
tests. Just clean up that source of contamination for now. Later we'll
think about routine termination.
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
Some tests weren't actually running for the past 5 days.
Performed 5 why's.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|