forums.silverfrost.com Forum Index forums.silverfrost.com
Welcome to the Silverfrost forums
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Please use /check with /debug or /full_debug

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    forums.silverfrost.com Forum Index -> 64-bit
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
DanRRight



Joined: 10 Mar 2008
Posts: 2187
Location: South Pole, Antarctica

PostPosted: Thu Jan 02, 2020 9:25 pm    Post subject: Please use /check with /debug or /full_debug Reply with quote

Folks, I encourage all of you to compile all your tasks with such combinations of compilation switches

/check /debug
/check /full_debug
/check /debug /undef

I still sometimes have crash either during compilation at run time or debugging with sdbg64 if I use /check.

If we all find small demo examples which crash then Silverfrost might faster find the reason.

Sending to Silverfrost my large code with instructions what's to do with it would be a PITA for me and Silverfrost. Also I'm still guessing if such crashes in my cases are due to very large requirements on memory 60GB or more or something because only ones somebody reported this (probably that was mecej4)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
PaulLaidler
Site Admin


Joined: 21 Feb 2005
Posts: 6325
Location: Salford, UK

PostPosted: Fri Jan 03, 2020 9:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

/check includes /debug.
/undef includes /check.

/checkmate includes /undef.

So most users can use /checkmate but only for development and testing. There are high overheads.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
John-Silver



Joined: 30 Jul 2013
Posts: 1319
Location: Aerospace Valley

PostPosted: Fri Jan 03, 2020 12:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

... or as it says in the definition of /CHECKMATE:
Quote:
/CHECKMATE
A synonym for /FULL_UNDEF. /FULL_UNDEF implies /UNDEF which in turn implies /CHECK.


The documentation for checkmate here:
https://www.silverfrost.com/15/ftn95/checkmate_the_world's_best_runtime_checking.aspx
... imo probably neds a refresh (update).

From what I see there are 2 lists of things listed that CHECKMATE does, the lower list of 11 pointés seems to duplicate (in shortened form) some of the things explained in more detail in the upper list of 8 points.
For me it's a little confusing.

Nowhere is it stated that on uses '/CHECKMATE' to activate it !

Some examples of the possible combinations as mentioned in earlier comments here, should definately be documented somewhere and cross-referenced here in the CHECKMATE documentation in some way.

The correspondance/useage with /DEBUG should also be clarified somewhere too.

At the moment it's a bit of a 'black art' which is probably why people avoid it. Which is a bit of a shame.

Maybe it's a topic crying out for another good Video Guide Paul ?


Paul, as for your:
Quote:
So most users can use /checkmate ...

which users can't ? , and why?
_________________
''Computers (HAL and MARVIN excepted) are incredibly rigid. They question nothing. Especially input data.Human beings are incredibly trusting of computers and don't check input data. Together cocking up even the simplest calculation ... Smile "
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
John-Silver



Joined: 30 Jul 2013
Posts: 1319
Location: Aerospace Valley

PostPosted: Fri Jan 03, 2020 1:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dan,
apart from not understanding why you and Silverfrost would be incited to eat (I assume lot's of) kebabs a a result Smile Smile Smile ,
your:
Quote:
If we all find small demo examples which crash then Silverfrost might faster find the reason.

... made me laugh as it can be easily read as a call to arms to bring Silverfrost to it's knees !!! LOL

Which I realise of course it isn't, but more a call to Silverfrost themselves to more proactively advertise and encourage it's use.
_________________
''Computers (HAL and MARVIN excepted) are incredibly rigid. They question nothing. Especially input data.Human beings are incredibly trusting of computers and don't check input data. Together cocking up even the simplest calculation ... Smile "
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kenneth_Smith



Joined: 18 May 2012
Posts: 270
Location: Hamilton, Lanarkshire, Scotland.

PostPosted: Fri Jan 03, 2020 4:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

There's a free plug for Silverfrost in my latest YouTube video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9frx0vgwbw

Not the most exciting of topics, unless you are a sparky Very Happy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
DanRRight



Joined: 10 Mar 2008
Posts: 2187
Location: South Pole, Antarctica

PostPosted: Fri Jan 03, 2020 10:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Paul,
If /check includes /debug then is this an error when applying these two compilation switches

/check /debug

or it is just a redundant causing no harm?

John,
In this post we tried kind of "multiusers multitasking": the all users orchestrated massive bug hunt Smile

One thing I found is that users tend not to report the bugs, they always get workarounds instead and wait others will report. So how we can make any software to be as clean as possible for as short time as possible ? Will see if activating all may help
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
PaulLaidler
Site Admin


Joined: 21 Feb 2005
Posts: 6325
Location: Salford, UK

PostPosted: Sat Jan 04, 2020 10:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dan

It is redundant causing no harm.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    forums.silverfrost.com Forum Index -> 64-bit All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group