* Request for better syntax checking in lang.opt
@ 2020-02-20 7:29 Thomas Koenig
2020-02-20 8:16 ` Martin Liška
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Thomas Koenig @ 2020-02-20 7:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc mailing list; +Cc: fortran
Hi,
having just lost a few hours on a space in lang.opt where
there was supposed to be none, leading to a new option
being silently ignored, a request:
Would it be possible to improve the syntax checking for lang.opt?
It's a file that people touch only rarely, so it is likely that
they will have no experience or will already have forgotten the
gotchas they encountered the last time.
Regards
Thomas
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Request for better syntax checking in lang.opt
2020-02-20 7:29 Request for better syntax checking in lang.opt Thomas Koenig
@ 2020-02-20 8:16 ` Martin Liška
2020-02-20 18:08 ` Thomas Koenig
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Martin Liška @ 2020-02-20 8:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Thomas Koenig, gcc mailing list; +Cc: fortran
On 2/20/20 8:29 AM, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> Hi,
>
> having just lost a few hours on a space in lang.opt where
> there was supposed to be none, leading to a new option
> being silently ignored, a request:
Hello.
Sure, I can improve sanity checking. What exactly have you screwed up?
>
> Would it be possible to improve the syntax checking for lang.opt?
> It's a file that people touch only rarely, so it is likely that
> they will have no experience or will already have forgotten the
> gotchas they encountered the last time.
Fully agree with that!
Martin
>
> Regards
>
> Â Â Â Â Thomas
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Request for better syntax checking in lang.opt
2020-02-20 8:16 ` Martin Liška
@ 2020-02-20 18:08 ` Thomas Koenig
2020-02-21 9:43 ` Martin Liška
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Thomas Koenig @ 2020-02-20 18:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Martin Liška, gcc mailing list; +Cc: fortran
Hi Martin,
> Sure, I can improve sanity checking.
Thanks!
> What exactly have you screwed up?
I had, in lang.opt
EnumValue
Enum (gfc_fcoarray) String (native) Value (GFC_FCOARRAY_NATIVE)
It was a bit non-obvious to me that this led to the whole sub-option
being ignored due to
*drum roll*
the space between the keywords and the opening parenthesis. I have
internalized the GNU style guides to such an extent that I hardly
ever see the space there :-)
Regards
Thomas
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Request for better syntax checking in lang.opt
2020-02-20 18:08 ` Thomas Koenig
@ 2020-02-21 9:43 ` Martin Liška
2020-02-23 9:48 ` Thomas Koenig
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Martin Liška @ 2020-02-21 9:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Thomas Koenig, gcc mailing list; +Cc: fortran
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 750 bytes --]
On 2/20/20 7:08 PM, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> Hi Martin,
>
>> Sure, I can improve sanity checking.
>
> Thanks!
>
>> What exactly have you screwed up?
> I had, in lang.opt
>
> EnumValue
> Enum (gfc_fcoarray) String (native) Value (GFC_FCOARRAY_NATIVE)
>
> It was a bit non-obvious to me that this led to the whole sub-option
> being ignored due to
>
> *drum roll*
>
> the space between the keywords and the opening parenthesis. I have
> internalized the GNU style guides to such an extent that I hardly
> ever see the space there :-)
Hello.
I was able to write a sanity check for these kind of issues, but it does
not resolve all similar issues for other keywords. It's not easy to do it.
Martin
>
> Regards
>
> Â Â Â Â Thomas
[-- Attachment #2: 0001-Make-more-sanity-checks-for-enums.patch --]
[-- Type: text/x-patch, Size: 1984 bytes --]
From 440fda0ccd2211cfd0478f50cc20d0969fe8bce0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Martin Liska <mliska@suse.cz>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2020 10:40:57 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] Make more sanity checks for enums.
---
gcc/opt-functions.awk | 13 +++++++++++++
gcc/opt-read.awk | 10 +++++-----
2 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/gcc/opt-functions.awk b/gcc/opt-functions.awk
index 2f0442dc563..be4b9e66165 100644
--- a/gcc/opt-functions.awk
+++ b/gcc/opt-functions.awk
@@ -72,6 +72,19 @@ function opt_args(name, flags)
return flags
}
+# If FLAGS contains a "NAME(...argument...)" flag, return the value
+# of the argument. Print error message otherwise.
+function opt_args_non_empty(name, flags, description)
+{
+ args = opt_args(name, flags)
+ if (args == "")
+ {
+ print "Empty option argument '" name "' during parsing of: " flags >> "/dev/stderr"
+ exit 1
+ }
+ return args
+}
+
# Return the Nth comma-separated element of S. Return the empty string
# if S does not contain N elements.
function nth_arg(n, s)
diff --git a/gcc/opt-read.awk b/gcc/opt-read.awk
index a2e16f29aff..9bb9dfcf6ca 100644
--- a/gcc/opt-read.awk
+++ b/gcc/opt-read.awk
@@ -81,8 +81,8 @@ BEGIN {
}
else if ($1 == "Enum") {
props = $2
- name = opt_args("Name", props)
- type = opt_args("Type", props)
+ name = opt_args_non_empty("Name", props)
+ type = opt_args_non_empty("Type", props)
unknown_error = opt_args("UnknownError", props)
enum_names[n_enums] = name
enum_type[name] = type
@@ -93,9 +93,9 @@ BEGIN {
}
else if ($1 == "EnumValue") {
props = $2
- enum_name = opt_args("Enum", props)
- string = opt_args("String", props)
- value = opt_args("Value", props)
+ enum_name = opt_args_non_empty("Enum", props)
+ string = opt_args_non_empty("String", props)
+ value = opt_args_non_empty("Value", props)
val_flags = "0"
val_flags = val_flags \
test_flag("Canonical", props, "| CL_ENUM_CANONICAL") \
--
2.25.0
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Request for better syntax checking in lang.opt
2020-02-21 9:43 ` Martin Liška
@ 2020-02-23 9:48 ` Thomas Koenig
2020-03-02 9:49 ` Martin Liška
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Thomas Koenig @ 2020-02-23 9:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Martin Liška, gcc mailing list; +Cc: fortran
Hi Martin,
> I was able to write a sanity check for these kind of issues, but it does
> not resolve all similar issues for other keywords. It's not easy to do it.
Having looked at the origina awk code, I agree. Maybe, in the long
term, a lex/yacc grammar with a monolithic C program to write out
the headers wold be more suitable.
Having said that, I think what you did is already quite valuable
and will save some gcc developers from a few prmature grey hairs :-)
So, I would recommend to commit as is. Sanity checks do not have
to be perfect.
Thanks for taking this on!
Regards
Thomas
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Request for better syntax checking in lang.opt
2020-02-23 9:48 ` Thomas Koenig
@ 2020-03-02 9:49 ` Martin Liška
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Martin Liška @ 2020-03-02 9:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Thomas Koenig, gcc mailing list; +Cc: fortran
On 2/23/20 10:47 AM, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> Hi Martin,
>
>> I was able to write a sanity check for these kind of issues, but it does
>> not resolve all similar issues for other keywords. It's not easy to do it.
>
> Having looked at the origina awk code, I agree. Maybe, in the long
> term, a lex/yacc grammar with a monolithic C program to write out
> the headers wold be more suitable.
... or as I suggested, we could use Python. But that was not welcomed
by the community as unnecessary dependency.
>
> Having said that, I think what you did is already quite valuable
> and will save some gcc developers from a few prmature grey hairs :-)
Anyway, I'll send the patch in the next stage1.
Martin
>
> So, I would recommend to commit as is. Sanity checks do not have
> to be perfect.
>
> Thanks for taking this on!
>
> Regards
>
> Thomas
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2020-03-02 9:49 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2020-02-20 7:29 Request for better syntax checking in lang.opt Thomas Koenig
2020-02-20 8:16 ` Martin Liška
2020-02-20 18:08 ` Thomas Koenig
2020-02-21 9:43 ` Martin Liška
2020-02-23 9:48 ` Thomas Koenig
2020-03-02 9:49 ` Martin Liška
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).