Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

bc: runtime error eats too much input #292

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Nov 14, 2023

Conversation

mknos
Copy link
Contributor

@mknos mknos commented Oct 14, 2023

  • In interactive bc, calling an undefined function does not cause a fatal error but an error is printed
  • YYERROR() is called in this situation, but it seems to break something
  • It appears that input tokens past the end of current statement are eaten by YYERROR
  • I observed this:

ME> x = hey(1) + 2
BC> No function hey() has been defined
ME> x
ME> x
BC> 0
ME> quit

  • After the error bc ignores the first time I type x (but when I ask again it politely answers)
  • Replacing YYERROR with "last INSTR" causes bc to jump past the final instruction in the current statement
  • Instructions in the subsequent statement are not destroyed
  • With this patch, the statement after the error is executed as I expect (this matches GNU bc)

ME> x = 5
BC> 5
ME> y = heh(6) + 7
BC> No function heh() has been defined
ME> x
BC> 5
ME> y
BC> 0
ME> quit

* In interactive bc, calling an undefined function does not cause a fatal error but an error is printed
* YYERROR() is called in this situation, but it seems to break something
* It appears that input tokens past the end of current statement are eaten by YYERROR
* I observed this:

ME> x = hey(1) + 2
BC> No function hey() has been defined
ME> x
ME> x
BC> 0
ME> quit

* After the error bc ignores the first time I type x (but when I ask again it politely answers)
* Replacing YYERROR with "last INSTR" causes bc to jump past the final instruction in the current statement
* Instructions in the subsequent statement are not destroyed
* With this patch, the statement after the error is executed as I expect (this matches GNU bc)

ME> x = 5
BC> 5
ME> y = heh(6) + 7
BC> No function heh() has been defined
ME> x
BC> 5
ME> y
BC> 0
ME> quit
@github-actions github-actions bot added Type: enhancement improve a feature that already exists Priority: low get to this whenever Program: bc The bc program labels Oct 14, 2023
@briandfoy
Copy link
Owner

I see this, but I want to look at it more closely. The innards of bc are quite complicated.

@mknos
Copy link
Contributor Author

mknos commented Oct 18, 2023

  • exec_stmt() can be called recursively, e.g. for handling an if-statement
  • In the example I gave, exec_stmt() is not called recursively
  • New example below
  • The underlying language is a stack, and assigning into x happens last
  • Push 10 and 5 onto stack, y() is expected to take its single argument (5) off the stack
  • Return value of y() replaces 5 in stack, then multiplies with 10
  • Push 2 on stack; then 2 is added to result of multiplication
  • In my understanding, calling "last INSTR" discards everything in the current statement (the list called stmt_s)
  • So in this example nothing is assigned into x, because the result can't be determined without y() being defined
x = 10 * y(5) + 2
executing statement: $VAR1 = [
          [
            'N',
            10
          ],
          [
            'N',
            5
          ],
          [
            'FUNCTION-CALL',
            'y'
          ],
          [
            '*_'
          ],
          [
            'N',
            2
          ],
          [
            '+_'
          ],
          [
            'V',
            'x'
          ],
          [
            '=V'
          ]
        ];
No function y() has been defined

@briandfoy
Copy link
Owner

I have not forgotten about this. I should have time in a week to look at this. I don't think there's a problem but I want to understand the situation first.

@briandfoy briandfoy self-assigned this Nov 14, 2023
@briandfoy briandfoy merged commit 1fe619b into briandfoy:master Nov 14, 2023
2 checks passed
@briandfoy briandfoy self-requested a review November 14, 2023 08:46
Copy link
Owner

@briandfoy briandfoy left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

approved

@briandfoy briandfoy added Status: accepted The fix is accepted and removed Priority: low get to this whenever labels Nov 14, 2023
@briandfoy briandfoy added Status: released there is a new release with this fix and removed Status: accepted The fix is accepted labels Nov 24, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Program: bc The bc program Status: released there is a new release with this fix Type: enhancement improve a feature that already exists
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants