about summary refs log tree commit diff stats
path: root/cpp/.traces
Commit message (Collapse)AuthorAgeFilesLines
* 1267 - 'routine-state' can use the provided routine idKartik K. Agaram2015-05-0562-322/+361
|
* 1266 - 'start-running' returns a unique routine idKartik K. Agaram2015-05-051-0/+24
|
* 1256 - scenarios now support keyboardKartik K. Agaram2015-05-042-0/+930
|
* 1255 - keyboard supportKartik K. Agaram2015-05-044-4/+4
|
* 1253 - new notion of 'predefined globals in scenarios'Kartik K. Agaram2015-05-044-26/+26
|
* 1250Kartik K. Agaram2015-05-042-0/+2258
|
* 1248 - syntax for using screens in scenariosKartik K. Agaram2015-05-0412-10/+1794
| | | | Still ugly as hell.
* 1247Kartik K. Agaram2015-05-0380-992/+992
|
* 1246Kartik K. Agaram2015-05-03139-2254/+2254
|
* 1244Kartik K. Agaram2015-05-0341-172/+172
|
* 1242 - simpler implementation for 'scenario'Kartik K. Agaram2015-05-0245-688/+2072
| | | | | Also now has the side effect that scenarios can have any number of 'run' or check or any future blocks, in any order.
* 1241 - bugfix: comments inside run [ ... ]Kartik K. Agaram2015-05-021-0/+29
|
* 1239 - scheduler bugfixKartik K. Agaram2015-05-023-0/+69
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | In the process, some extra unit tests as well. The final scenario is newly fixed. Between the earlier support for '%' escaping C code inside scenarios, and the previous commit, we now actually have the ability to setup the Routines data structure just so to simulate different situations. One unanticipated but happy consequence of ignoring run(""): I can interleave '+' lines with '-' lines to avoid making any ordering assertions between '+' lines. So the '+' lines here are checked in order: +layer1: a +layer3: c But here they will pass even if present out of order: +layer1: a -layer2: b +layer3: c This might be too confusing. In general, relying on run("") is just a temporary hack. It might well have even worse counter-intuitive effects. At least I'm not seeing any string-escaping issues so far.
* 1235Kartik K. Agaram2015-05-013-0/+96
|
* 1234 - support for trace checksKartik K. Agaram2015-05-014-0/+117
|
* 1231Kartik K. Agaram2015-05-014-0/+145
|
* 1230 - start building scenarios out of 'pseudo recipes'Kartik K. Agaram2015-05-012-0/+72
|
* 1229Kartik K. Agaram2015-05-014-12/+12
|
* 1227Kartik K. Agaram2015-04-301-0/+1076
|
* 1226 - bugfix in allocating arraysKartik K. Agaram2015-04-3027-2680/+3222
| | | | Also our first test of printing to screen.
* 1225Kartik K. Agaram2015-04-29117-0/+1891
| | | | Finally start tracing the actual instructions as they run.
* 1223 - more stable traces for parse scenariosKartik K. Agaram2015-04-29147-463/+463
|
* 1222Kartik K. Agaram2015-04-291-0/+4
|
* 1217 - string literals weren't handling later commentsKartik K. Agaram2015-04-282-7/+3
|
* 1216Kartik K. Agaram2015-04-283-3/+10
|
* 1214Kartik K. Agaram2015-04-281-0/+234
|
* 1213Kartik K. Agaram2015-04-2865-111/+121
|
* 1211 - /same-as-ingredient property is now checkedKartik K. Agaram2015-04-281-0/+32
|
* 1209 - channels painlessly ported overKartik K. Agaram2015-04-289-0/+3041
| | | | | | | | I've made some tweaks to the arc version. In/out params should be identical; it was ugly that the in param was a pointer but the out wasn't. Still need to check the /same-as-ingredient property.
* 1207Kartik K. Agaram2015-04-271-0/+0
|
* 1206 - 'wait' state for synchronizing routinesKartik K. Agaram2015-04-2734-56/+96
| | | | I think I have enough now to port channels over.
* 1197Kartik K. Agaram2015-04-251-0/+44
|
* 1196Kartik K. Agaram2015-04-241-0/+0
|
* 1195Kartik K. Agaram2015-04-241-0/+20
|
* 1194Kartik K. Agaram2015-04-24102-0/+104
|
* 1193Kartik K. Agaram2015-04-2415-65/+65
|
* 1192Kartik K. Agaram2015-04-241-5/+5
|
* 1187Kartik K. Agaram2015-04-241-0/+37
|
* 1184 - finally, concurrencyKartik K. Agaram2015-04-24117-52/+175
|
* 1168Kartik K. Agaram2015-04-2413-75/+75
|
* 1166Kartik K. Agaram2015-04-249-23/+23
| | | | | | | Why did I think STL's map wasn't efficient? It has logarithmic complexity (maintains a tree internally) and is faster than hashing for small containers. It's the more portable solution and should be what I turn to by default.
* 1163Kartik K. Agaram2015-04-242-2/+2
|
* 1146 - yet another out-of-bounds accessKartik K. Agaram2015-04-221-0/+40
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | There's a test in this commit, but it doesn't actually fail, because by some accident the memory at index 2 of recipe 'f' has data at the is_label offset and breaks out of the loop. Graah. How did I ever misplace that "Reading One Instruction" waypoint? I could swear I was concerned about this possibility when I implemented calls. Today has been tough on my confidence. STL helps avoid memory leaks but doesn't help with buffer overflows nearly as much as I thought. Oh brilliant, valgrind caught the problem! And there weren't any others. I feel much better.
* 1126 - 'mu test x.mu' runs just scenarios in x.muKartik K. Agaram2015-04-221-0/+210
| | | | | | | Required still more tweaking of Recipe namespaces. Mindlessly inserting setup() took a couple of hours to debug because the test function and the function it was testing ended up getting the same recipe number, with the inevitable infinite loop :/
* 1125Kartik K. Agaram2015-04-221-26/+26
|
* 1116 - simpler memory checksKartik K. Agaram2015-04-201-0/+29
|
* 1109 - interpolate stringsKartik K. Agaram2015-04-203-0/+2078
|
* 1108 - check for typos in memory expectations in scenariosKartik K. Agaram2015-04-201-0/+5
|
* 1107Kartik K. Agaram2015-04-201-0/+3
|
* 1105 - more primitives for managing ingredientsKartik K. Agaram2015-04-1932-50/+99
|
generated by cgit-pink 1.4.1-2-gfad0 (git 2.36.2.497.gbbea4dcf42) at 2024-07-04 20:38:16 +0000