I'm using the SystemVerilog stringify operator, `", in a macro, as below. The case is deliberately contrived to show the bug:
module my_test();
`define print(x) $fwrite(log_file, `"x`")
`define println(x) $fwrite(log_file, `"x\n`")
integer log_file;
initial begin
log_file = $fopen("result.txt", "w");
`print(A);
`print(B);
`println(C);
`println(D);
`print(E);
`print(F);
end
endmodule
This gives the output (no trailing newline):
ABC
`D
`EF
Why are there `s in the output, but only from the println?
Is this documented behaviour in the spec, or a bug in my simulator (Aldec Active-HDL)?
This is a bug in your tool. However, the second `" is not needed and gives you the results you are looking for.
Related
I just discovered that perl ignores space between the sigil and its variable name and was wondering if someone could tell me if this was the expected behaviour. I've never run into this before and it can result in strange behaviour inside of strings.
For example, in the following code, $bar will end up with the value 'foo':
my $foo = 'foo';
my $bar = "$ foo";
This also works with variable declarations:
my $
bar = "foo\n";
print $bar;
The second case doesn't really matter much to me but in the case of string interpolation this can lead to very confusing behaviour. Anyone know anything about this?
Yes, it is part of the language. No, you should not use it for serious code. As for being confusing in interpolation, all dollar signs (that are not part of a variable) should be escaped, not just the ones next to letters, so it shouldn't be a problem.
I do not know if this is the real reason behind allowing whitespace in between the sigil and the variable name, but it allows you to do things like
my $ count = 0;
my $file_handle_foo = IO::File->new;
which might be seen by some people as handy (since it puts the sigils and the unique parts of the variable names next to each other). It is also useful for Obfu (see the end of line 9 and beginning of line 10):
#!/usr/bin/perl -w # camel code
use strict;
$_='ev
al("seek\040D
ATA,0, 0;");foreach(1..3)
{<DATA>;}my #camel1hump;my$camel;
my$Camel ;while( <DATA>){$_=sprintf("%-6
9s",$_);my#dromedary 1=split(//);if(defined($
_=<DATA>)){#camel1hum p=split(//);}while(#dromeda
ry1){my$camel1hump=0 ;my$CAMEL=3;if(defined($_=shif
t(#dromedary1 ))&&/\S/){$camel1hump+=1<<$CAMEL;}
$CAMEL--;if(d efined($_=shift(#dromedary1))&&/\S/){
$camel1hump+=1 <<$CAMEL;}$CAMEL--;if(defined($_=shift(
#camel1hump))&&/\S/){$camel1hump+=1<<$CAMEL;}$CAMEL--;if(
defined($_=shift(#camel1hump))&&/\S/){$camel1hump+=1<<$CAME
L;;}$camel.=(split(//,"\040..m`{/J\047\134}L^7FX"))[$camel1h
ump];}$camel.="\n";}#camel1hump=split(/\n/,$camel);foreach(#
camel1hump){chomp;$Camel=$_;y/LJF7\173\175`\047/\061\062\063\
064\065\066\067\070/;y/12345678/JL7F\175\173\047`/;$_=reverse;
print"$_\040$Camel\n";}foreach(#camel1hump){chomp;$Camel=$_;y
/LJF7\173\175`\047/12345678/;y/12345678/JL7F\175\173\0 47`/;
$_=reverse;print"\040$_$Camel\n";}';;s/\s*//g;;eval; eval
("seek\040DATA,0,0;");undef$/;$_=<DATA>;s/\s*//g;( );;s
;^.*_;;;map{eval"print\"$_\"";}/.{4}/g; __DATA__ \124
\1 50\145\040\165\163\145\040\157\1 46\040\1 41\0
40\143\141 \155\145\1 54\040\1 51\155\ 141
\147\145\0 40\151\156 \040\141 \163\16 3\
157\143\ 151\141\16 4\151\1 57\156
\040\167 \151\164\1 50\040\ 120\1
45\162\ 154\040\15 1\163\ 040\14
1\040\1 64\162\1 41\144 \145\
155\14 1\162\ 153\04 0\157
\146\ 040\11 7\047\ 122\1
45\15 1\154\1 54\171 \040
\046\ 012\101\16 3\16
3\15 7\143\15 1\14
1\16 4\145\163 \054
\040 \111\156\14 3\056
\040\ 125\163\145\14 4\040\
167\1 51\164\1 50\0 40\160\
145\162 \155\151
\163\163 \151\1
57\156\056
Given this program:
#!/bin/env perl6
sub MAIN ($filename='test.fq', :$seed=floor(now) )
{
say "Seed is $seed";
}
When I run it without any command line arguments, it works fine. However, when I give it a command line argument for seed, it says that its value is True:
./seed.p6 --seed 1234
Seed is True
Why is the number 1234 being interpreted as a boolean?
Perl 6's MAIN argument handling plays well with gradual typing. Arguments can, and should be typecast to reduce ambiguity and improve validation:
#!/bin/env perl6
sub MAIN (Str $filename='test.fq', Int :$seed=floor(now))
{
say "Seed is $seed.";
}
After typecasting seed to Int, this option must be given a numeric argument and no longer defaults to a Boolean:
perl6 ./seed.pl -seed 1234
Usage:
./seed.pl [--seed=<Int>] [<filename>]
perl6 ./seed.pl -seed=abc
Usage:
./seed.pl [--seed=<Int>] [<filename>]
perl6 ./seed.pl -seed=1234
Seed is 1234.
You need to use an = sign between your option --seed and its value 1234:
./seed.p6 --seed=1234
Since you have a positional argument in your MAIN subroutine signature (i.e. $filename), the first argument not tied to an value with an = sign will be assigned to it.
Your original
./seed.p6 --seed 1234
was being interpreted as if 1234 were the filename (i.e. it was assigned to the variable $filename). Since a command line option without an argument is considered to be True, $seed was being assigned True in your original invocation of that script.
I have written following grammar
Model:
package = PackageDec?
greetings+=Greeting*
usage+=Usage* ;
PackageDec:
'package' name=QualifiedName ;
Greeting:
'greet' name=ID '{' ops += Operation* '}' ;
Operation:
'op' name=ID ('(' ')' '{' '}')? ;
QualifiedName:
ID ('.' ID)*;
Usage:
'use';
With above i can write following script.
package p1.p2
greet G1 {op f1 op f2 }
Now i need to write something like this:
package p1.p2
greet G1 {op f1 op f2 op f3}
use p1.p2.G1.f1
use p1.p2.G1
use p1.p2.G1.f3
To support that i changed Usage RULE like this
Usage:
'use' head=[Greet|QualifiedName] =>('.' tail=[Operation])?
However when i generate xtext artifacts it is complaining about multiple alternatives.
Please let me know how to write correct grammar rule for this.
This is because QualifiedName consumes dots (.). Adding ('.' ...)? makes two alternatives. Consider input
a.b.c
This could be parsed as
head="a" tail = "b.c"
head="a.b" tail = "c"
If I understand your intention of using predicate => right, than you just have to replace
head=[Greet|QualifiedName]
with
head=[Greet]
In this case however you will not be able to parse references with dots.
As a solution I would recommend to substitute your dot with some other character. For example with colon:
Usage:
'use' head=[Greet|QualifiedName] (':' tail=[Operation])?
I want to split the following Scala code line like this:
ConditionParser.parseSingleCondition("field=*value1*").description
must equalTo("field should contain value1")
But which is the line continuation character?
Wrap it in parentheses:
(ConditionParser.parseSingleCondition("field=*value1*").description
must equalTo("field should contain value1"))
Scala does not have a "line continuation character" - it infers a semicolon always when:
An expression can end
The following (not whitespace) line begins not with a token that can start a statement
There are no unclosed ( or [ found before
Thus, to "delay" semicolon inference one can place a method call or the dot at the end of the line or place the dot at the beginning of the following line:
ConditionParser.
parseSingleCondition("field=*value1*").
description must equalTo("field should contain value1")
a +
b +
c
List(1,2,3)
.map(_+1)
I am trying to build a Lisp grammar. Easy, right? Apparently not.
I present these inputs and receive errors...
( 1 1)
23 23 23
ui ui
This is the grammar...
%%
sexpr: atom {printf("matched sexpr\n");}
| list
;
list: '(' members ')' {printf("matched list\n");}
| '('')' {printf("matched empty list\n");}
;
members: sexpr {printf("members 1\n");}
| sexpr members {printf("members 2\n");}
;
atom: ID {printf("ID\n");}
| NUM {printf("NUM\n");}
| STR {printf("STR\n");}
;
%%
As near as I can tell, I need a single non-terminal defined as a program, upon which the whole parse tree can hang. But I tried it and it didn't seem to work.
edit - this was my "top terminal" approach:
program: slist;
slist: slist sexpr | sexpr;
But it allows problems such as:
( 1 1
Edit2: The FLEX code is...
%{
#include <stdio.h>
#include "a.yacc.tab.h"
int linenumber;
extern int yylval;
%}
%%
\n { linenumber++; }
[0-9]+ { yylval = atoi(yytext); return NUM; }
\"[^\"\n]*\" { return STR; }
[a-zA-Z][a-zA-Z0-9]* { return ID; }
.
%%
An example of the over-matching...
(1 1 1)
NUM
matched sexpr
NUM
matched sexpr
NUM
matched sexpr
(1 1
NUM
matched sexpr
NUM
matched sexpr
What's the error here?
edit: The error was in the lexer.
Lisp grammar can not be represented as context-free grammar, and yacc can not parse all lisp code.
It is because of lisp features such as read-evaluation and programmable reader. So, in order just to read an arbitrary lisp code, you need to have a full lisp running. This is not some obscure, non-used feature, but it is actually used. E.g., CL-INTERPOL, CL-SQL.
If the goal is to parse a subset of lisp, then the program text is a sequence of sexprs.
The error is really in the lexer. Your parentheses end up as the last "." in the lexer, and don't show up as parentheses in the parser.
Add rules like
\) { return RPAREN; }
\( { return LPAREN; }
to the lexer and change all occurences of '(', ')' to LPAREN and RPAREN respectively in the parser. (also, you need to #define LPAREN and RPAREN where you define your token list)
Note: I'm not sure about the syntax, could be the backslashes are wrong.
You are correct in that you need to define a non-terminal. That would be defined as a set of sexpr. I'm not sure of the YACC syntax for that. I'm partial to ANTLR for parser generators and the syntax would be:
program: sexpr*
Indicating 0 or more sexpr.
Update with YACC syntax:
program : /* empty */
| program sexpr
;
Not in YACC, but might be helpful anyway, here's a full grammar in ANTLR v3 that works for the cases you described(excludes strings in the lexer because it's not important for this example, also uses C# console output because that's what I tested it with):
program: (sexpr)*;
sexpr: list
| atom {Console.WriteLine("matched sexpr");}
;
list:
'('')' {Console.WriteLine("matched empty list");}
| '(' members ')' {Console.WriteLine("matched list");}
;
members: (sexpr)+ {Console.WriteLine("members 1");};
atom: Id {Console.WriteLine("ID");}
| Num {Console.WriteLine("NUM");}
;
Num: ( '0' .. '9')+;
Id: ('a' .. 'z' | 'A' .. 'Z')+;
Whitespace : ( ' ' | '\r' '\n' | '\n' | '\t' ) {Skip();};
This won't work exactly as is in YACC because YACC generates and LALR parser while ANTLR is a modified recursive descent. There is a C/C++ output target for ANTLR if you wanted to go that way.
Do you neccesarily need a yacc/bison parser? A "reads a subset of lisp syntax" reader isn't that hard to implement in C (start with a read_sexpr function, dispatch to a read_list when you see a '(', that in turn builds a list of contained sexprs until a ')' is seen; otherwise, call a read_atom that collects an atom and returns it when it can no longer read atom-constituent characters).
However, if you want to be able to read arbritary Common Lisp, you'll need to (at the worst) implement a Common Lisp, as CL can modify the reader run-time (and even switch between different read-tables run-time under program control; quite handy when you're wanting to load code written in another language or dialect of lisp).
It's been a long time since I worked with YACC, but you do need a top-level non-terminal. Could you be more specific about "tried it" and "it didn't seem to work"? Or, for that matter, what the errors are?
I'd also suspect that YACC might be overkill for such a syntax-light language. Something simpler (like recursive descent) might work better.
You could try this grammar here.
I just tried it, my "yacc lisp grammar" works fine :
%start exprs
exprs:
| exprs expr
/// if you prefer right recursion :
/// | expr exprs
;
list:
'(' exprs ')'
;
expr:
atom
| list
;
atom:
IDENTIFIER
| CONSTANT
| NIL
| '+'
| '-'
| '*'
| '^'
| '/'
;