Re: argument count mismatch

2006-01-21 Thread Leopold Toetsch
On Jan 20, 2006, at 20:57, Chip Salzenberg wrote: On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 05:51:53PM +0100, Leopold Toetsch wrote: This could be fixed by special-casing the initial call to ':main', and then turn on param count checks if wanted. I think you'll need to invert that, given that code can be exec

Re: argument count mismatch

2006-01-20 Thread Chip Salzenberg
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 11:41:45AM -0800, jerry gay wrote: > i suppose we need a design decision on this. We need a PIR version of get_params '()'. I'm OK with .no_params. -- Chip Salzenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Re: argument count mismatch

2006-01-20 Thread Chip Salzenberg
On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 05:51:53PM +0100, Leopold Toetsch wrote: > This could be fixed by special-casing the initial call to ':main', > and then turn on param count checks if wanted. I think you'll need to invert that, given that code can be executed before :main, e.g. :immediate. Default the err

Re: argument count mismatch

2006-01-20 Thread jerry gay
On 1/16/06, Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Roger Browne wrote: > > > Wow, it really does work. Thanks! Although it misses the case where the > > called sub has zero .params: > > > >.sub 'main' :main > > errorson 0x0C > > foo(5) > >.end > >.sub foo > > pri

Re: argument count mismatch

2006-01-16 Thread Roger Browne
On Mon, 2006-01-16 at 14:51 +0100, Leopold Toetsch wrote: > As said, get_params isn't emitted at all, if there are no params. A > simple work-around could be: > >.macro .no_params # maybe defined internally > get_params '()' > ... > With r11213 this throws an exception for the above sam

Re: argument count mismatch

2006-01-16 Thread Leopold Toetsch
Roger Browne wrote: Wow, it really does work. Thanks! Although it misses the case where the called sub has zero .params: .sub 'main' :main errorson 0x0C foo(5) .end .sub foo print "Not OK\n" .end As said, get_params isn't emitted at all, if there are no params. A

Re: argument count mismatch

2006-01-13 Thread jerry gay
On 1/13/06, jerry gay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > i'll fix PGE, which will leave only about 135 failures, many of which > are in library code (no surprise there.) with a little help, i think > we can squash these failures in no time. > on second thought... before i go diving into PGE to fix someth

Re: argument count mismatch

2006-01-13 Thread jerry gay
On 1/13/06, Roger Browne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, 2006-01-13 at 17:01 +0100, Leopold Toetsch wrote: > > > 885/4851 subtests failing, 81,76% okay. > > Wow, that's a lot of tests affected by this one thing. > most of them are in the PGE tests. since there are over 1,300 PGE tests, and and

Re: argument count mismatch

2006-01-13 Thread Leopold Toetsch
Roger Browne wrote: Wow, it really does work. Thanks! Although it misses the case where the called sub has zero .params: .sub 'main' :main errorson 0x0C foo(5) .end .sub foo print "Not OK\n" .end Yep. There is currently just one reason for that and it's in your c

argument count mismatch

2006-01-13 Thread Roger Browne
On Fri, 2006-01-13 at 17:01 +0100, Leopold Toetsch wrote: > ... making argument > > count mismatch detection work with '.param'? > > That's as easy as emitting one instruction in main: > >errorson 0x0C Wow, it really does work. Thanks! Although it miss