[fpc-devel]BUGS!

[Michael Van Canneyt]

On Mon, 19 Nov 2001, Alan Grimes wrote:

> New bug:
>
> Each source file includes a GPL notice.  -- FINE --
>
> WHERE IS THE TEXTUAL DESCRIPTION OF WHAT THE FILE DOES/CAN DO?

There isn't any, except of the small line in the GPL notice.

>
> Should I *really* have to scan through the entire file, locating all
> symbol names and finding all comments?

Yes.

>
> I am not an elite codemeister; I really can't gain much from just
> looking at code and trying to figure out where in the puzzle it fits...
> Pascal is a great language for readability, but it is not *that*
> great...

If you want to make a new port of the compiler, you'll have to get
thoroughly familiar with the RTL and Compiler anyhow. You will have
to read through almost any file in any case.

Better to read the arch.pdf file which describes the compiler and RTL
structure.

>
> > If you are referring to the list of reserved keywords, then the page
> > numbers will not be added; They would confuse matters IMHO.
>
> > You can, however, look in the index for the page numbers, that is what
> > an index is for.
>
> An index of the reserved keywords is __NOT__ in the refferance manual.

Hm. I will add this for the next release. All functions are indexed,
keywords apparently not. I will fix this.

>
> >> 4. Documentation (part II): While your syntax diagrams are a nice
> >> innovation (Its the first time I have read a language text that used
> >> them), A thourough discussion of the *symantics* of the varrious
> >> language features seems to be missing. Of particular interest to me
> >> is what exactly "PROGRAM" means to the compiler.
>
> > That an executable module follows, of course ? I don't understand what
> > you mean with this. Could you give more examples ? I'll be glad to add
> > more explanations.
>
> /me has thought about it some more and decided that the manual is just
> fine for a refferance manual, What I really need is a text that will get
> me back up to speed on the language and its philosophies. The last time
> I worked with Pascal was in Highschool on Xenith XTs, with no HD... =\

This is explicitly not the intention of the manual.

>
> For your information, there is a wide variety of concepts and
> terminology surrounding many programming paradigms. Each language is its
> own "ontology", Just saying something is a "program" doesn't cut it
> because the it can mean different things in different operating systems.
> The Pascal "Program" mapps almost perfectly onto DOS, but Unix uses the
> "process" which has evolved to be significantly more sophisticated, I
> don't fully understand how daemon processes work, but they are
> significantly different than a simple "DO THIS" program...

No, they are not. Daemons are normal programs.
And a 'unix' process can be mapped 1-1 to a dos program.

>
> The threading support in Linux suggests that one implement "Concurrent
> Pascal", as mentioned by Stallings in Operating Systems, second ed.

Thread support is being worked on, but not yet finished.

>
> I still have the lab hand-out packet, but it was written by a trio of
> female tax-suckers; not nearly as deep as I need it to be... It barely
> gets into files much less the details of seperate compilation and the
> equivalent header files (units?)...
>
> Reading through the manuals available on the website some more I find
> refferance to a compiler manual which, presumably, includes a
> walkthrough of the compiler source... However this document is not on
> the website.

This is correct: The document is not yet finished. I can send you a
copy in acrobat PDF if you want.

Michael.