On 7/6/2021 6:33 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
Mature?  And still without consequent error checking?  And done,
i.  e. this will never be fixed?

Intentional design by upstream, and then for the actual problem part
(error checking, test suite), Sean is saying he'll fix it, and has
started on it.

To clarify, the intentional design aspect is for the language (e.g. giving garbage to "expr"). The library does need better memory alloc checks (this is the main thing missing because i never had to use LIL on an environment without virtual memory... or where malloc would ever practically fail), though IIRC there aren't any other cases where failure could happen and isn't checked. Similarly i do plan on implementing a proper test suite (currently there is a shell script that runs all the examples in the source code - many examples were made to expose previous bugs - with two different implementations which can be used to find regressions in subsequent releases and differences between implementations, but the examples do not exhaust the code paths the parser could take) at some point - the latter is more likely to happen soon than the former.

The same applies with LIL being "done" (well, mostly done) - this is about the language, not the implementation which (as i mentioned in another email) does need improvements, especially around performance (which is also a reason i need to implement better automated tests).

Kostas

Reply via email to