According to the docs there is no reference of check panicking in any situation, but I would like to know if there is any edge case where this method could panic rather than returning false.
AFAICS, there are currently two cases where check() may fail:
The path leads to a cycle (see https://github.com/onflow/cadence/issues/2264)
Not sure: The code/type of the stored value is broken and cannot be loaded
Please feel free to open an issue in the Cadence repository if you think this should be changed, and especially why. Thanks!
Related
If I have a function call that returns true or false as the condition of an if statement, do I have to worry about Swift forking my code for efficiency?
For example,
if (resourceIsAvailable()) { //execute code }
If checking for the resource is computationally expensive, will Xcode wait or attempt to continue on with the code?
Is this worth using a completion handler?
What if the resource check must make a database call?
Good question.
First off... can a function be used? Absolutely.
Second... should it be used?
A lot of that depends on the implementation of the function. If the function is known (to the person who wrote it) to take a long time to complete then I would expect that person to deal with that accordingly.
Thankfully with a lot of iOS things like that are taken out of the hands of the developer (mostly). CoreData and Network requests normally come with a completion handler. So any function that uses them would also need to be async and have a completion handler.
There is no fixed rule for this. My best advice would be...
If you can see the implementation of the function then try to work out what it’s doing.
If you can’t then give it a go. You could even use the time profiler in Xcode profiler to determine how long it is taking to complete.
The worst that could happen is you find it is slow and then change it for something else.
I have 2 pieces of code :
It works normal
with ADOTemp do
begin
SQL.Clear;
SQL.Add('INSERT INTO documents');
SQL.Add('(document_date,fk_id_status,money_direction,');
SQL.Add('paid,addition,saving,fk_id_base,fk_id_user)');
SQL.Add('VALUES ');
SQL.Add('(CONVERT(DATE,GETDATE(),103),:pfk_id_status,:pmoney_direction,');
SQL.Add('0,0,0,'+IntToStr(p_id_base)+',:pfk_id_user)');
Parameters.ParamByName('pfk_id_status').Value := p_id_status;
Parameters.ParamByName('pmoney_direction').Value := p_money_direction;
// Parameters.ParamByName('p').Value := p_id_base;
Parameters.ParamByName('pfk_id_user').Value := fMain.ApplicationVariablers.user_id;
ExecSQL;
end;
It does not work and returns a terrible error
with ADOTemp do
begin
SQL.Clear;
SQL.Add('INSERT INTO documents');
SQL.Add('(document_date,fk_id_status,money_direction,');
SQL.Add('paid,addition,saving,fk_id_base,fk_id_user)');
SQL.Add('VALUES ');
SQL.Add('(CONVERT(DATE,GETDATE(),103),:pfk_id_status,:pmoney_direction,');
SQL.Add('0,0,0,:p,:pfk_id_user)');
Parameters.ParamByName('pfk_id_status').Value := p_id_status;
Parameters.ParamByName('pmoney_direction').Value := p_money_direction;
Parameters.ParamByName('p').Value := p_id_base;
Parameters.ParamByName('pfk_id_user').Value := fMain.ApplicationVariablers.user_id;
ExecSQL;
end;
Error on image, line 1917
It seems that this question is in reference to your earlier question: Delphi, error :"Access violation at address xxxxxxxx. Read of address yyyyyyyy", at AdoQuery.SQL.Text:='''
You had added and accepted an answer there along the lines seen in this question. The error message, an AV in msvcrt.dll is indicative of a serious programming error. Perhaps a heap corruption. Perhaps something else. The change you made that stops the error occurring does not really fix the problem. The problem will still be there, lying dormant. You just got (un)lucky that the change you made appeared to fix the problem.
Access violations are not always reproducible. That's just their nature. When you encounter one you need to understand why it happens. Simply using trial and error to re-organise code from a completely different location will never lead to the real solution.
What you should be doing is tracking down the real cause of the problem. Do that, fix it, and either version of the code above will work. This is probably not the answer you are wanting to get. You may very well not want to accept what I say. But, speaking from experience, until you recognise that you have a more serious problem, you will make no headway here.
Looking at your code in the bitmap...I'm pretty sure you access violation is because of what David just said...you have serious Memory problems in your code...Your not freeing your objects...that you are creating...Anytime you pass a nil reference to Owner in a TComponent Constructor...your telling the compiler...that you know what your doing and will free it when your finished with it...Matter of fact good practice is to always free objects that you declare and use exclusively in the scope of your method.
procedure TForm1.MyMethod;
var
a_MyComp: TMyComp;
begin
a_MyComp := TMyComp.Create(nil);
Try
//use my a_MyComp...
Finally
a_MyComp.Free;
End;
end;
Check out your code in CreateNewDocument...you'll notice that your not freeing your AdoTemp.
-Rick
Access violation exceptions (AVs) tell you that you have made a mistake in the memory access of your program. However, the way access violations work: they are unable to guarantee always detecting the error every time you make a mistake. (Sometimes you get un-lucky and no access violations are raised, but the mistake is still there causing other things to quietly go wrong inside your application.)
You can think of the memory available to your program being represented as below (where "." means the memory is not allocated to anything, and "A" means the memory is allocated to something within your program: e.g. object, local variable, parameter, machine code).
[.......AAA..AAAA.....AA......A...A...........AAA....A.......AA.........AAAAA]
Suppose you create some object; this will require memory to be allocated for the object itself. If the object in turn creates child objects, this will also be allocated in memory. (I'll use "O" and "C")
/-ref--\
[.......AAA..AAAAO....AAC.....A...A.....C.....AAA....A.......AA.........AAAAA]
\-ref------------------/
Note that within the memory allocated to O, it might hold references to its child objects.
Conversely to the above, whenever an object is destroyed, its memory is deallocated. Let us suppose you have made a mistake in your memory access, and something has destroyed one of O's child objects before O has finished using it.
/-ref--\
[.......AAA..AAAAO....AAC.....A...A...........AAA....A.......AA.........AAAAA]
\-ref------------------/
If O now tries to use its second child object, you will get an access violation. However, you might be un-lucky and not get an access violation showing your earlier mistake IF:
You destroy O without it trying to do anything to the second child object.
Or you first create a new object that happens to be allocated in the exact same place the child object was.
The second situation tends to be worse than the first, because every time C2 is used on the assumption that it is the correct child of O: unexpected results are produced and an incorrect values are written in memory. These incorrect values may be important data, or references to other objects (making the problem get worse over time).
So: Whenever yo do get an access violation, thank your lucky stars and hunt down the root cause of the problem.
NB! NB! I cannot stress the importance of the above enough.
Investigating your particular problem
First note, when an exception pauses in the debugger, the code usually points to the next line that would have been executed if not for the exception. (This doesn't affect anything here, because the previous line is also ADOTemp.SQL.Add; - the point is be prepared to consider the previous line as the cause of an exception - and test to confirm it!)
Useful tip: When an exception is thrown within Delphi/Third Party code, it can be useful to build with Debug DCU's or recompile Third Party source with debug information to get closer to the actual line raising the exception. (This can even be useful in situations like this where the error appears to be inside a Microsoft DLL.)
Looking at your screen-shot, the exception is thrown from a brand new instance of TADOQuery. Now there really isn't any sensible explanation for a brand new query to be throwing access violations when simply adding text to its SQL query. This strongly implies a corruption problem as described earlier.
One possibility would be another thread interfering with this one. (NOTE: even if your application isn't multi-threaded, the ADO objects do have built-in support for asynchronous operations.) However, I'm going to ignore that possibility for now because threading issues tend to be less consistent than you've implied this one is.
So, assuming you have a memory access problem somewhere else that is only manifesting here with a brand new TADOQuery (used correctly at least up to the point of the AV) - what other objects are interacting with this query to possibly cause corruption?
ADOTemp.Connection := fMain.ADOConnection;
There is a very strong possibility that commenting out the above line would also eliminate your access violation. So what are the possible problems:
fMain might have been destroyed prematurely and is now a dangling pointer meaning the code to return ADOConnection could do any of a number of unexpected things.
Any of the code backing fMain.ADOConnection may be referencing corrupted memory or dangling pointers; this includes the returned connection itself.
NOTE: One very common cause of invalid memory access is to have a function such as GetADOConnection that does not correctly initialise its Result. So in some cases it returns a 'random' address in memory, resulting in all sorts of unexpected behaviour when something tries to use the connection.
Is your ADOConnection created on a different thread, and being used by multiple threads?
PS: Don't forget to follow Rick's advice, and make sure you destroy the query when you've finished using it. Who knows, there might be an internal bug in ADO that when it runs out of a particular internal resource (due to queries not being destroyed), that causes ADO to start throwing AVs.
NOTE: You should be able to test my theory without altering functionality by simply changing the ADOTemp.Connection := ... line. Simply assign a connection string to the query instead of a connection object. However, if that solves (or more correctly stated: hides) the problem, please follow my advice, and hunt down the root cause of the AV.
How can I extract the plotedit state of a Matlab figure inside a function? If I want to know the zoom state of the current figure, I can write:
zoomState = get(zoom(gcf), 'Enable');
A similar syntax for plotedit does not work, since plotedit(gcf) toggles the plotedit state without returning anything. Without having a way to get plotedit's current state, I have no clue how to temporarily put it to 'off' and restore its value once my function has finished. Any ideas?
I just received an answer from the MathWorks on this issue:
here is an undocumented feature that you might want to use :
ison = plotedit(gcf,'isactive')
This will tell you if PLOTEDIT is active or not. However, since this
is undocumented it might change or not work in future releases.
I think that this answers my question.
If you type open plotedit at the command line, you will see that it is actually an m-file. When the state is toggled, it calls the undocumented function activateuimode to do the dirty work. Taking a wild guess, I typed help getuimode at the command line and got back the message
This function is undocumented and will change in a future release
So the function exists. Presumably, calling it with the same input arguments as activateuimode in plotedit will do what you want. That is,
getuimode(myFigHandle, 'Standard.EditPlot')
On my system, it returns [] if not in edit mode, and an instance of uitools.uimode if it is.
Note, however, that this approach may be a bit dodgy - as the help says, it will probably change in a future release. If you open getuimode, you will see it has been the same since 2007, but as I understand it there has been a major overhaul of the UI system in R2013, so it may have changed in the most recent release (I'm running R2012a).
For example, if I implement some simple object caching, which method is faster?
1. return isset($cache[$cls]) ? $cache[$cls] : $cache[$cls] = new $cls;
2. return #$cache[$cls] ?: $cache[$cls] = new $cls;
I read somewhere # takes significant time to execute (and I wonder why), especially when warnings/notices are actually being issued and suppressed. isset() on the other hand means an extra hash lookup. So which is better and why?
I do want to keep E_NOTICE on globally, both on dev and production servers.
I wouldn't worry about which method is FASTER. That is a micro-optimization. I would worry more about which is more readable code and better coding practice.
I would certainly prefer your first option over the second, as your intent is much clearer. Also, best to keep away edge condition problems by always explicitly testing variables to make sure you are getting what you are expecting to get. For example, what if the class stored in $cache[$cls] is not of type $cls?
Personally, if I typically would not expect the index on $cache to be unset, then I would also put error handling in there rather than using ternary operations. If I could reasonably expect that that index would be unset on a regular basis, then I would make class $cls behave as a singleton and have your code be something like
return $cls::get_instance();
The isset() approach is better. It is code that explicitly states the index may be undefined. Suppressing the error is sloppy coding.
According to this article 10 Performance Tips to Speed Up PHP, warnings take additional execution time and also claims the # operator is "expensive."
Cleaning up warnings and errors beforehand can also keep you from
using # error suppression, which is expensive.
Additionally, the # will not suppress the errors with respect to custom error handlers:
http://www.php.net/manual/en/language.operators.errorcontrol.php
If you have set a custom error handler function with
set_error_handler() then it will still get called, but this custom
error handler can (and should) call error_reporting() which will
return 0 when the call that triggered the error was preceded by an #.
If the track_errors feature is enabled, any error message generated by
the expression will be saved in the variable $php_errormsg. This
variable will be overwritten on each error, so check early if you want
to use it.
# temporarily changes the error_reporting state, that's why it is said to take time.
If you expect a certain value, the first thing to do to validate it, is to check that it is defined. If you have notices, it's probably because you're missing something. Using isset() is, in my opinion, a good practice.
I ran timing tests for both cases, using hash keys of various lengths, also using various hit/miss ratios for the hash table, plus with and without E_NOTICE.
The results were: with error_reporting(E_ALL) the isset() variant was faster than the # by some 20-30%. Platform used: command line PHP 5.4.7 on OS X 10.8.
However, with error_reporting(E_ALL & ~E_NOTICE) the difference was within 1-2% for short hash keys, and up 10% for longer ones (16 chars).
Note that the first variant executes 2 hash table lookups, whereas the variant with # does only one lookup.
Thus, # is inferior in all scenarios and I wonder if there are any plans to optimize it.
I think you have your priorities a little mixed up here.
First of all, if you want to get a real world test of which is faster - load test them. As stated though suppressing will probably be slower.
The problem here is if you have performance issues with regular code, you should be upgrading your hardware, or optimize the grand logic of your code rather than preventing proper execution and error checking.
Suppressing errors to steal the tiniest fraction of a speed gain won't do you any favours in the long run. Especially if you think that this error may keep happening time and time again, and cause your app to run more slowly than if the error was caught and fixed.
I have a pretty weird problem in my iPhone app which is, I think, related to memory getting corrupted:
At one point, I need to sort an array, which I do with -[sortArrayUsingFunction].
The result is not correct unless I either allocate some memory with something like void *test = malloc(2 * sizeof( int )) before the method call or have, e.g., a call to NSLog() (which is never invoked) in the sorting function.
In other words: the sorting only works if I slightly increase the memory that was used before calling the sorting function. I think this is because at some point, memory gets corrupted.
How do you debug something like this?
It sounds like some of your code is using already released objects. A lot of help with debugging this kind of errors is provided in Apple’s great Mac OS X Debugging Magic tech note, especially the foundation part.
For your case I'd disable autorelease pools (setting the environment variable NSEnableAutoreleasePool=NO) or use the zombie feature (NSZombieEnabled=YES) to find places where you send messages to released objects.
Try running your program in the simulator under Valgrind:
http://valgrind.org/
And how to use it under the simulator:
http://landonf.bikemonkey.org/code/iphone/iPhone_Simulator_Valgrind.20081224.html
You may have to change the VALGRIND path in the code example depending on where it gets installed.
Such things can be a challenge to debug. There are some tools for detecting out-of-bounds accesses and such on other platforms, so I presume there would be something for the iPhone, however I don't know of any.
Perhaps you should store two copies of the array, and compare them for differences. Print out the differences. The nature of the "junk" that was introduced to one of the arrays might give a hint as to where it came from.
Also just go through the code that runs before this point, and re-read it (or better yet, get someone else to read it). You might spot a bug.