>> Can't really evaluate the results (at lest I don't know what >> actions to make), so I've attached cpinfo.txt output from Clipper >> and Harbour. > > Now it should be very simple. > Please regenerate cp*.c files again using Clipper and add them to Harbour > SVN. Some of the above files will used human readable form without and > static tables and they for sure can be left in such way. > Some others will use only static tables and they can be converted to > human readable form so they also should be left untouched. > Finally the 3-rd group will use human readable form but will also have > the binary tables disabled by: > #if 0 /* TOVERIFY: binary tables */ > [...] > #endif > > This CPs should be sooner or later verified by someone. You can also > commit them as is and the verification can be done by anyone using Harbour > compiler only. This verification is very simple process. Is enough to > compile cpinfo.prg by Harbour and generate cp*.c files for given CP which > should be verified. Then this new file should be compared with the one > in SVN, i.e. using diff -u command. > Both files should have static tables disabled by above #if 0 /* ... */ > statement and if these static tables are identical then human readable > form is correct. > In such case I suggest to make small modification and change: > > #if 0 /* TOVERIFY: binary tables */ > > to: > > #if 0 /* VERIFIED: <DATE>, [<developer>] */ > > so other developers will know that CP was verified and human readable > definition can be safely used. > If it cannot be safely used (generated tables are different) then '#if 0' > should be replaced with '#if 1' > That's all.
All I can do is reupload the ones done with Clipper. I hope someone will be able to make the tests. I'm still not sure what we're testing here? Whether cpinfo.prg and Harbour CP engine is correct? Sorry for my ignorance. >> BTW, maybe it'd be better to use the cp name instead of cpinfo.txt. > > I have know preferences here though IMHO 'cpinfo' is less enigmatic then > pure 'cp' which will also confuse *nix users causing problems for us when > we ask some less advanced users about 'cp' command output so I do not think > it's good idea. I need to clarify: I meant to name of output file cpinfo.txt to cphu852.txt format which makes comparison easier, or at least more foolproof. cpinfo is perfect as the name of the tool. Brgds, Viktor _______________________________________________ Harbour mailing list (attachment size limit: 40KB) Harbour@harbour-project.org http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour
