cwc@blitz.princeton.edu (Chris Clifton) (07/10/90)
I am trying to deal with an external signal in a rescue clause.
Basically the code is as follows:
rescue
if exception = Sighup then
ignore(Sighup); -- One is enough.
signalled := true;
retry
end
This works fine when compiled with es -d, even with no assertion checking.
However, when I generate a package the rescue clause is ignored: the program
terminates with the following message:
Following information could be incomplete or untrustworthy.
System execution failed.
Below is the sequence of recorded exceptions:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Object Class Routine Nature of exception Effect
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
External event:
Hangup. Fail
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
For more information on the last exception,
recompile with option PRECONDITIONS or ALL_ASSERTIONS on.
Anyone have any suggestions on what this might be and how to fix it?
-Chris Clifton (cwc@Princeton.EDU)jp@eiffel.UUCP (Jean-Pierre Sarkis) (07/24/90)
Chris Clifton (935@rossignol.Princeton.EDU) wrote: >I am trying to deal with an external signal in a rescue clause. >Basically the code is as follows: > >rescue > if exception = Sighup then > ignore(Sighup); -- One is enough. > signalled := true; > retry > end > >This works fine when compiled with es -d, even with no assertion checking. >However, when I generate a package the rescue clause is ignored: the program >terminates with the following message: > Following information could be incomplete or untrustworthy. > System execution failed. > Below is the sequence of recorded exceptions: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Object Class Routine Nature of exception Effect > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > External event: > Hangup. Fail > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > For more information on the last exception, > recompile with option PRECONDITIONS or ALL_ASSERTIONS on. > >Anyone have any suggestions on what this might be and how to fix it? This bug has been fixed in our current development version. The following will patch the run-time in Eiffel 2.2B in order to handle exceptions properly when the system is compiled with no assertion checking and post-processed. PATCH: ----- 1) DO a BACKUP of the directory $INSTALLATION/Eiffel/files 2) Edit the file $INSTALLATION/Eiffel/files/_eiffel.c and modify the C routine rout_conv() as following: ********************** START ********************* static void rout_conv (rout_nm, classnum, routnum) char *rout_nm; int classnum, routnum; { if (routnum<=NO_ROUT) sprintf (rout_nm, "%s", " "); else if (routnum==CREATE_ROUT) sprintf (rout_nm, "%s", "create"); else if (routnum==PUT_ROUT) sprintf (rout_nm, "%s", "put"); else if (routnum==AT_ROUT) sprintf (rout_nm, "%s", "item"); else if (Rout_names [classnum] && Rout_names [classnum][routnum]) sprintf (rout_nm, "%s", Rout_names [classnum] [routnum]); else sprintf (rout_nm, "(NULL)"); } ********************** END ********************************* The modification is on the line "if (Rout_names [classnum] && Rout_names [classnum][routnum])" 3) Save the file and generate the new run_time archive: (Check the CFLAGS in makefile _makeD: -O -DBSD or -O -DSYSTEMV depending on your Unix system) execute: make -f _makeD 4) Recompile your application with the post-processor turned ON. Jean-Pierre SARKIS jp@eiffel.com (Technical support: eiffel@eiffel.com) -- Jean-Pierre SARKIS Interactive Software Engineering Reply-to: eiffel@eiffel.com
ok@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au (Richard A. O'Keefe) (07/24/90)
In article <375@eiffel.UUCP>, jp@eiffel.UUCP (Jean-Pierre Sarkis) writes: > PATCH: > static void rout_conv(rout_nm, classnum, routnum) > char *rout_nm; >... sprintf(rout_nm, "%s", " "); >... sprintf(rout_nm, "%s", "create"); >... sprintf(rout_nm, "%s", "put"); >... sprintf(rout_nm, "%s", "item"); >... sprintf(rout_nm, "%s", Rout_names[classnum][routnum]); >... sprintf(rout_nm, "(NULL)"); I suppose this is more of a comp.lang.c question than a comp.lang.eiffel question, but what do the calls to sprintf() here buy you that calls to strcpy() wouldn't? -- Science is all about asking the right questions. | ok@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au I'm afraid you just asked one of the wrong ones. | (quote from Playfair)
rick@tetrauk.UUCP (Rick Jones) (07/25/90)
In article <3463@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au> ok@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au (Richard A. O'Keefe) writes: >In article <375@eiffel.UUCP>, jp@eiffel.UUCP (Jean-Pierre Sarkis) writes: >> ... >>... sprintf(rout_nm, "%s", " "); >>... etc > >I suppose this is more of a comp.lang.c question than a comp.lang.eiffel >question, but what do the calls to sprintf() here buy you that calls to >strcpy() wouldn't? The answer is "not a lot". I re-worked the exception handling in _eiffel.c in my version (and a few of the other run-time things as well). Changing this stuff into strcpy's was one of the more trivial fixes. ISE have a copy of all my changes, so I hope they'll include them in future versions. Although I'm a devotee of Eiffel, I found the quality of the run-time C code one of the main dissapointments of the product. Hopefully it will improve. It seems to show that to get a quality implementation of the Eiffel language and environment still needs a good C programmer. There must be a moral in this somewhere ... -- Rick Jones You gotta stand for something Tetra Ltd. Maidenhead, Berks Or you'll fall for anything rick@tetrauk.uucp (...!ukc!tetrauk.uucp!rick) - John Cougar Mellencamp