Re: [Ql-Users] Question regarding the expected behaviour of the SBASIC cmd MRUN in a program...
Martyn wrote - .. It's more than open to interpretation, but if you're still interested, let me explain (it's a bit long winded, but then I test software as part of my real job and get a bit fastidious about it). Write on Martyn, please.. And thanks. John in Wales ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] Question regarding the expected behaviour of the SBASIC cmd MRUN in a program...
On 15 Oct 2009, at 00:13, Martyn Hill wrote: Take the following simple example (no MRUN involved here): Scenario A: LRESPR in the main program - OK. 10 LRESPR some_extn_file : REMark ** LRESPR some useful SB extentions 20 dummy_proc : REM ** Call a PROC that doesn't exist in this program Because the PROC dummy_proc doesn't exist, the following (expected) error is returned: At line 20:1 unknown procedure OK, so far. Scenario B: LRESPR from within an invoked PROC - Unusual. 10 init_extns: REMark ** Call a PROC that LRESPRs some useful SB extentions 20 dummy_proc : REM ** Call a PROC that doesn't exist in this proram ... 100 DEF PROC init_extns 110 LRESPR some_extn_file 120 END DEF Now, the invocation of PROC dummy_proc still causes an error, but this time is thus: At line 120:1 unknown procedure I have tried this with tptr_ext being LRESPRd but the error is correctly signalled after the call to the non-existent proc. I wonder if your program would also allow tptr_ext to be LRESPRd. If if so then there must be something special about what you are LRESPRing. If not then??? George ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] Question regarding the expected behaviour of the SBASIC cmd MRUN in a program...
gdgqler wrote: I wonder if your program would also allow tptr_ext to be LRESPRd. If if so then there must be something special about what you are LRESPRing. If not then??? I did a quick test (using MENU_REXT) and actually even managed to crash SMSQ/E completely once. So there may be some dogs buried, but usually the graves are so hard to find that in these fringe cases I try to avoid them at all... ;-) Marcel ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] Question regarding the expected behaviour of the SBASIC cmd MRUN in a program...
Hi Thanks to everyone who answered my initial post on this peculiar issue of MRUN not continuing to run the remaining program after merging some definitions. Firstly, I tried the simple cases suggested and yes, MRUN works just as expected. Secondly, line numbers of the merged definitions were not at fault (no overlap with existing lines). Then I started to carry out (what turned out to be) an exhaustive bit of testing with my own boot program and have now been able to replicate this curious behaviour. This testing appears to have isolated a _possible_ problem with SBASIC when LRESPRing a significant number of SB resident extentions from within a PROC. It's more than open to interpretation, but if you're still interested, let me explain (it's a bit long winded, but then I test software as part of my real job and get a bit fastidious about it). Take the following simple example (no MRUN involved here): Scenario A: LRESPR in the main program - OK. 10 LRESPR some_extn_file : REMark ** LRESPR some useful SB extentions 20 dummy_proc : REM ** Call a PROC that doesn't exist in this program Because the PROC dummy_proc doesn't exist, the following (expected) error is returned: At line 20:1 unknown procedure OK, so far. Scenario B: LRESPR from within an invoked PROC - Unusual. 10 init_extns: REMark ** Call a PROC that LRESPRs some useful SB extentions 20 dummy_proc : REM ** Call a PROC that doesn't exist in this proram ... 100 DEF PROC init_extns 110 LRESPR some_extn_file 120 END DEF Now, the invocation of PROC dummy_proc still causes an error, but this time is thus: At line 120:1 unknown procedure Curious - the SB program pointer appears to have gotten screwed. No biggie in this simplistic case. However, coming back to the MRUN issue (finally), let's assume that dummy_proc is contained in another file dummy_proc_def, like this: 200 DEF PROC dummy_proc 210 PRINT 'Running dummy_proc...' 220 END DEF Now let's see what happens... Scenario C: LRESPR in the main program, with MRUN - OK. 10 LRESPR some_extn_file : REMark ** LRESPR some useful SB extentions 15 MRUN dummy_proc_def 20 dummy_proc : REM ** Call a PROC that has just been MERGEd Because the PROC dummy_proc now exists, it runs without error as expected, printing the debug message 'Running dummy_proc...' Scenario D: LRESPR from within an invoked PROC, then MRUN - Unhelpful. 10 init_extns: REMark ** Call a PROC that LRESPRs some useful SB extentions 15 MRUN dummy_proc_def 20 dummy_proc : REM ** Call a PROC that has just been MERGEd ... 100 DEF PROC init_extns 110 LRESPR some_extn_file 120 END DEF In this case, the invocation of dummy_proc just never happens, no debug message is printed and the program simply halts withour error. An inquisitive LISTing shows dummy_proc is safely merged. This is the behaviour that lead to my initial posting. I've tested with various SB resident extention files - DIY Toolkits, Turbo (full) TK, the QLib1.6 TK, as well as FileInfo and Menu_rext. All result in the same obserevd behaviour, _except_ when LRESPRing the simple ENV extentions. My _guess_ for the difference in behaviour between TKs is that ENV doesn't add as many extra SB resident procs/fns as the others and the growth in the name table while running inside the init_extns proc is clobering some return stack or SB variable. Now I'm talking well out of my league, so will stop here. It's hardly a show-stopper - I can simply move my LRESPRs outside a defined proc, but thought that there might be at least one of you who'd be marginally interested (Marcel?) Oh, I'm running QPC 3.34, SMSQ/E 3.13 HBA with 16MB RAM. Regards, Martyn Hill London. Martyn Hill wrote: Hi again Could anyone say whether the behaviour that I'm seeing when using MRUN in a running SBASIC prog is expected? As part of my initial SB boot prog, I include an MRUN statement that successfully merges some useful SB definitions (only). I expect the boot prog to continue to execute the next statement, but it simply stops after merging the DEFs. I'm running this in QPC. Is this expected behaviour? I read in the manual that MRUN in a program _should_ continue with the next runnable statement in the program. Regards, Martyn Hill London. ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] Question regarding the expected behaviour of the SBASIC cmd MRUN in a program...
On 11 Oct 2009, at 22:17, Martyn Hill wrote: Could anyone say whether the behaviour that I'm seeing when using MRUN in a running SBASIC prog is expected? As part of my initial SB boot prog, I include an MRUN statement that successfully merges some useful SB definitions (only). I expect the boot prog to continue to execute the next statement, but it simply stops after merging the DEFs. I'm running this in QPC. Is this expected behaviour? I read in the manual that MRUN in a program _should_ continue with the next runnable statement in the program. I have just written a program which uses MRUN in a BASIC program (P) . MRUN loads a procedure which is called by the line following MRUN. This works in QPC2 both by RUN having loaded P and also by LRUNning P. I guess there must be something else in your BOOT which causes the trouble. George ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] Question regarding the expected behaviour of the SBASIC cmd MRUN in a program...
Hi Martyn, Could your problem have to do with line numbers? Per Message Received: Oct 11 2009, 10:17 PM From: Martyn Hill martyn.joseph.h...@googlemail.com To: ql-users@lists.q-v-d.com Cc: Subject: [Ql-Users] Question regarding the expected behaviour of the SBASIC cmd MRUN in a program... Hi again Could anyone say whether the behaviour that I'm seeing when using MRUN in a running SBASIC prog is expected? As part of my initial SB boot prog, I include an MRUN statement that successfully merges some useful SB definitions (only). I expect the boot prog to continue to execute the next statement, but it simply stops after merging the DEFs. I'm running this in QPC. Is this expected behaviour? I read in the manual that MRUN in a program _should_ continue with the next runnable statement in the program. Regards, Martyn Hill London. ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] Question regarding the expected behaviour of the SBASIC cmd MRUN in a program...
In message 4ad24b63.5030...@googlemail.com, Martyn Hill martyn.joseph.h...@googlemail.com writes Hi Martyn. I know that LRUN works fine, in Boot links, as I use it successfully to chain a number of smaller Boot files; rather than one long one. As well as making choices to go to differing options. Maybe MRUN runs out direction after a merge somewhere in your Boot ? Or maybe it is just a line number problem ? Hi again Could anyone say whether the behaviour that I'm seeing when using MRUN in a running SBASIC prog is expected? As part of my initial SB boot prog, I include an MRUN statement that successfully merges some useful SB definitions (only). I expect the boot prog to continue to execute the next statement, but it simply stops after merging the DEFs. I'm running this in QPC. Is this expected behaviour? I read in the manual that MRUN in a program _should_ continue with the next runnable statement in the program. Regards, Martyn Hill London. -- Malcolm Cadman ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
[Ql-Users] Question regarding the expected behaviour of the SBASIC cmd MRUN in a program...
Hi again Could anyone say whether the behaviour that I'm seeing when using MRUN in a running SBASIC prog is expected? As part of my initial SB boot prog, I include an MRUN statement that successfully merges some useful SB definitions (only). I expect the boot prog to continue to execute the next statement, but it simply stops after merging the DEFs. I'm running this in QPC. Is this expected behaviour? I read in the manual that MRUN in a program _should_ continue with the next runnable statement in the program. Regards, Martyn Hill London. ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
