From: Daniel T. <dan...@gm...> - 2008-05-22 18:48:20
|
Daniel Tuser wrote: > Eric Bezault wrote: >> Daniel Tuser wrote: >>> In my opinion the code in catcall_problem.e contains no catcall. The >>> following lines show the output of gec. I understand the problem of >>> gec, but it will never happen. Is that a catcall according to the >>> ECMA specification? >> >> The ECMA specification does not say much about CAT-calls. >> In gec, there can be false alarms like these, but the >> advantage is that when there is no error reported we know >> for sure that there will be no CAT-calls at runtime. It >> is usually possible to rewrite the code to avoid such >> CAT-calls messages. At least it was possible to do so >> for the code currently in the Gobo package. >> > My goal was to write test cases for DS_BILINEAR_TABLE and > DS_BILINEAR_SET. All the binary search tree variants could have used > them and maybe DS_HASH_[TABLE|SET] as well. But I had to stop because > of those CAT-calls. Should I write separate test cases for all the > variants or do you think it would be manageable to improve the > CAT-call detection? > I had a look at the classes that are involved in detecting the CAT-calls. From my point of view it is not worth the effort (at least for me), so I will write separate test cases. |