Quantum Leaps

Hi mricciutelli, Tests with QUTest with real kernels, such as QK or QXK are provided in the directory qpc/test (or equivalent for qpcpp). But please read the related discussion thread, for the more general comments about various testing levels with QUTest (unit testing vs. integration testing). --MMS

Thanks for reporting. The assertion IDs should be unique (mostly), so this will be fixed. Regarding the limits on state machine complexity, they are now enforced more strictly as part of the functional safety updates. Specifically, now all loops must have a numerical upper bound. The currently limits can be increased slightly but the formal testing will be limited to what is provided in the official code. I hope this makes sense to you. --MMS

Hi Clay, Thank you for reporting, but you're using an older QM version. If you just look at the QM revision history of your version 5.1.1 and scroll up just a little bit, you'll see that the issue has been fixed in QM version 5.1.4 (bug#307). Any chance that you can just use a newer (preferably the latest) QM? --MMS

Thank you for reporting, but before taking a deeper look, it seems that you're trying to overload a function on its return type. Such overloading was never allowed in C++, so perhaps the issue is moot anyway. Please check. --MMS

Hi June, Your design to publish an event that carries only one character at a time is horribly inefficient. Imagine that you write a letter, but instead of sending one letter with the whole message, you send hundreds of letters, each containing one character packaged in its own envelope with a postage stamp and address. Sounds ridiculous, doesn't it? Yet, this is precisely what you're doing. Your system handled this somehow up to this point, but the design is so horribly expensive that at some point...

Hi June, Your design to publish an event that carries only one character at a time is horribly inefficient. Imagine that you write a letter, but instead of sending one letter with the whole message, you send hundreds of letters, each containing one character packaged in its own envelope with a postage stamp and address. Sounds ridiculous, doesn't it? Yet, this is precisely what you're doing. Your system handled this somehow up to this point, but the design is so horribly expensive that at some point...

Hi June, Your design to publish an event that carries only one character at a time is horribly inefficient. Imagine that you write a letter, but instead of sending one letter with the whole message, you send hundreds of letters, each containing one character packaged in its own envelope with a postage stamp and address. Sounds ridiculous, doesn't it? Yet, this is precisely what you're doing. Your system handled this somehow up to this point, but the design is so horribly expensive that at some point...

Hi June, Your design to publish an event that carries only one character at a time is horribly inefficient. Imagine that you write a letter, but instead of sending one letter with the whole message, you send hundreds of letters, each containing one character packaged in its own envelope with a postage stamp and address. Sounds ridiculous, doesn't it? Yet, this is precisely what you're doing. Your system handled this somehow up to this point, but the design is so horribly expensive that at some point...