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
