Re: Why not more 'advanced' tools?

From	vandys@vsta.org
Newsgroups	comp.lang.forth
Subject	Re: Why not more 'advanced' tools?
Date	2012-07-12 00:29 +0000
Message-ID	<a66k39F6oiU1@mid.individual.net> (permalink)
References	<2ea8a4ce-4bd0-4fd6-a19f-81f0f073dd18@re8g2000pbc.googlegroups.com> <ad37fddb-d708-48cc-a4ba-9e95efe1cd7e@googlegroups.com>

Show all headers | View raw

mhx@iae.nl wrote:
> I consider this particular facility a basic tool. You run a 400 line Forth
> program written by somebody else (or from 2 weeks ago). You notice there is
> an unexpected extra number left on the stack. How do you approach the
> problem of pinpointing this bug?

ForthOS's stack annotation looked like:
: mydef { val1 val2 -- res }
    ( def itself ... ) ;

val1 and val2 were popped off the stack and available under those names
for the body of the definition.  At return, stack format was enforced;
if the stack didn't have the correct size (given the two inputs values which
came off and the one which was pushed on), execution was aborted.

Not all definitions used this facility in my own work, but enough tended to
that it was generally easy to work back to the culprit.

-- 
Andy Valencia
Home page: http://www.vsta.org/andy/
To contact me: http://www.vsta.org/contact/andy.html

Back to comp.lang.forth | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Why not more 'advanced' tools? Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> - 2012-07-11 11:10 -0700
  Re: Why not more 'advanced' tools? mhx@iae.nl - 2012-07-11 15:45 -0700
    Re: Why not more 'advanced' tools? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-07-11 13:08 -1000
      Re: Why not more 'advanced' tools? mhx@iae.nl - 2012-07-11 16:39 -0700
        Re: Why not more 'advanced' tools? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-07-11 14:00 -1000
          Re: Why not more 'advanced' tools? Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> - 2012-07-11 19:41 -0700
            Re: Why not more 'advanced' tools? Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-07-11 22:22 -0700
              Re: Why not more 'advanced' tools? Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-07-12 01:31 -0700
              Re: Why not more 'advanced' tools? Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2012-07-13 01:52 +0000
            Re: Why not more 'advanced' tools? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-07-11 20:43 -1000
              Re: Why not more 'advanced' tools? Roelf Toxopeus <rt4all@notthis.hetnet.nl> - 2012-07-12 12:05 +0200
                Re: Why not more 'advanced' tools? Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2012-07-12 16:25 +0200
        Re: Why not more 'advanced' tools? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-07-12 23:50 +0200
          Re: Why not more 'advanced' tools? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-07-13 13:43 +0000
    Re: Why not more 'advanced' tools? vandys@vsta.org - 2012-07-12 00:29 +0000
  Re: Why not more 'advanced' tools? Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-07-11 22:13 -0700
    Re: Why not more 'advanced' tools? Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-07-12 01:29 -0700
      Re: Why not more 'advanced' tools? Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-07-12 02:09 -0700
  Re: Why not more 'advanced' tools? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-07-12 07:17 -0500
    Re: Why not more 'advanced' tools? Fanzo <cristianof6@gmail.com> - 2012-07-12 20:19 +0200
      Re: Why not more 'advanced' tools? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-07-12 08:45 -1000
      Re: Why not more 'advanced' tools? stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2012-07-12 19:47 +0000
      Re: Why not more 'advanced' tools? Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-07-12 14:54 -0700

csiph-web