* The XEmacs Object System (Abstractly Speaking)::
* How Lisp Objects Are Represented in C::
* Rules When Writing New C Code::
+* Regression Testing XEmacs::
* A Summary of the Various XEmacs Modules::
* Allocation of Objects in XEmacs Lisp::
* Dumping::
* General Guidelines for Writing Mule-Aware Code::
* An Example of Mule-Aware Code::
+Regression Testing XEmacs
+
A Summary of the Various XEmacs Modules
* Low-Level Modules::
* Modules for Interfacing with the Operating System::
* Modules for Interfacing with X Windows::
* Modules for Internationalization::
+* Modules for Regression Testing::
Allocation of Objects in XEmacs Lisp
used for the Lisp object can vary. It can be either a simple type
(@code{long} on the DEC Alpha, @code{int} on other machines) or a
structure whose fields are bit fields that line up properly (actually, a
-union of structures is used). Generally the simple integral type is
-preferable because it ensures that the compiler will actually use a
-machine word to represent the object (some compilers will use more
-general and less efficient code for unions and structs even if they can
-fit in a machine word). The union type, however, has the advantage of
-stricter type checking. If you accidentally pass an integer where a Lisp
-object is desired, you get a compile error. The choice of which type
-to use is determined by the preprocessor constant @code{USE_UNION_TYPE}
-which is defined via the @code{--use-union-type} option to
-@code{configure}.
+union of structures is used). The choice of which type to use is
+determined by the preprocessor constant @code{USE_UNION_TYPE} which is
+defined via the @code{--use-union-type} option to @code{configure}.
+
+Generally the simple integral type is preferable because it ensures that
+the compiler will actually use a machine word to represent the object
+(some compilers will use more general and less efficient code for unions
+and structs even if they can fit in a machine word). The union type,
+however, has the advantage of stricter @emph{static} type checking.
+Places where a @code{Lisp_Object} is mistakenly passed to a routine
+expecting an @code{int} (or vice-versa), or a check is written @samp{if
+(foo)} (instead of @samp{if (!NILP (foo))}, will be flagged as errors.
+None of these lead to the expected results! @code{Qnil} is not
+represented as 0 (so @samp{if (foo)} will *ALWAYS* be true for a
+@code{Lisp_Object}), and the representation of an integer as a
+@code{Lisp_Object} is not just the integer's numeric value, but usually
+2x the integer +/- 1.)
+
+There used to be a claim that the union type simplified debugging.
+There may have been a grain of truth to this pre-19.8, when there was no
+@samp{lrecord} type and all objects had a separate type appearing in the
+tag. Nowadays, however, there is no debugging gain, and in fact
+frequent debugging *@emph{loss}*, since many debuggers don't handle
+unions very well, and usually there is no way to directly specify a
+union from a debugging prompt.
+
+Furthermore, release builds should *@emph{not}* be done with union type
+because (a) you may get less efficiency, with compilers that can't
+figure out how to optimize the union into a machine word; (b) even
+worse, the union type often triggers miscompilation, especially when
+combined with Mule and error-checking. This has been the case at
+various times when using GCC and MS VC, at least with @samp{--pdump}.
+Therefore, be warned!
+
+As of 2002 4Q, miscompilation is known to happen with current versions
+of @strong{Microsoft VC++} and @strong{GCC in combination with Mule,
+pdump, and KKCC} (no error checking).
Various macros are used to convert between Lisp_Objects and the
corresponding C type. Macros of the form @code{XINT()}, @code{XCHAR()},
nothing unless the corresponding configure error checking flag was
specified.
-@node Rules When Writing New C Code, A Summary of the Various XEmacs Modules, How Lisp Objects Are Represented in C, Top
+@node Rules When Writing New C Code, Regression Testing XEmacs, How Lisp Objects Are Represented in C, Top
@chapter Rules When Writing New C Code
@cindex writing new C code, rules when
@cindex C code, rules when writing new
If you want to make XEmacs faster, target your favorite slow benchmark,
run a profiler like Quantify, @code{gprof}, or @code{tcov}, and figure
-out where the cycles are going. Specific projects:
+out where the cycles are going. In many cases you can localize the
+problem (because a particular new feature or even a single patch
+elicited it). Don't hesitate to use brute force techniques like a
+global counter incremented at strategic places, especially in
+combination with other performance indications (@emph{e.g.}, degree of
+buffer fragmentation into extents).
+
+Specific projects:
@itemize @bullet
@item
@item
Speed up redisplay.
@item
-Speed up syntax highlighting. Maybe moving some of the syntax
-highlighting capabilities into C would make a difference.
+Speed up syntax highlighting. It was suggested that ``maybe moving some
+of the syntax highlighting capabilities into C would make a
+difference.'' Wrong idea, I think. When processing one large file a
+particular low-level routine was being called 40 @emph{million} times
+simply for @emph{one} call to @code{newline-and-indent}. Syntax
+highlighting needs to be rewritten to use a reliable, fast parser, then
+to trust the pre-parsed structure, and only do re-highlighting locally
+to a text change. Modern machines are fast enough to implement such
+parsers in Lisp; but no machine will ever be fast enough to deal with
+quadratic (or worse) algorithms!
@item
Implement tail recursion in Emacs Lisp (hard!).
@end itemize
add an INIT_LRECORD_IMPLEMENTATION call to @code{syms_of_@var{foo}.c}
@end enumerate
-@node A Summary of the Various XEmacs Modules, Allocation of Objects in XEmacs Lisp, Rules When Writing New C Code, Top
+
+@node Regression Testing XEmacs, A Summary of the Various XEmacs Modules, Rules When Writing New C Code, Top
+@chapter Regression Testing XEmacs
+@cindex testing, regression
+
+The source directory @file{tests/automated} contains XEmacs' automated
+test suite. The usual way of running all the tests is running
+@code{make check} from the top-level source directory.
+
+The test suite is unfinished and it's still lacking some essential
+features. It is nevertheless recommended that you run the tests to
+confirm that XEmacs behaves correctly.
+
+If you want to run a specific test case, you can do it from the
+command-line like this:
+
+@example
+$ xemacs -batch -l test-harness.elc -f batch-test-emacs TEST-FILE
+@end example
+
+If something goes wrong, you can run the test suite interactively by
+loading @file{test-harness.el} into a running XEmacs and typing
+@kbd{M-x test-emacs-test-file RET <filename> RET}. You will see a log of
+passed and failed tests, which should allow you to investigate the
+source of the error and ultimately fix the bug.
+
+Adding a new test file is trivial: just create a new file here and it
+will be run. There is no need to byte-compile any of the files in
+this directory---the test-harness will take care of any necessary
+byte-compilation.
+
+Look at the existing test cases for the examples of coding test cases.
+It all boils down to your imagination and judicious use of the macros
+@code{Assert}, @code{Check-Error}, @code{Check-Error-Message}, and
+@code{Check-Message}.
+
+Here's a simple example checking case-sensitive and case-insensitive
+comparisons from @file{case-tests.el}.
+
+@example
+(with-temp-buffer
+ (insert "Test Buffer")
+ (let ((case-fold-search t))
+ (goto-char (point-min))
+ (Assert (eq (search-forward "test buffer" nil t) 12))
+ (goto-char (point-min))
+ (Assert (eq (search-forward "Test buffer" nil t) 12))
+ (goto-char (point-min))
+ (Assert (eq (search-forward "Test Buffer" nil t) 12))
+
+ (setq case-fold-search nil)
+ (goto-char (point-min))
+ (Assert (not (search-forward "test buffer" nil t)))
+ (goto-char (point-min))
+ (Assert (not (search-forward "Test buffer" nil t)))
+ (goto-char (point-min))
+ (Assert (eq (search-forward "Test Buffer" nil t) 12))))
+@end example
+
+This example could be inserted in a file in @file{tests/automated}, and
+it would be a complete test, automatically executed when you run
+@kbd{make check} after building XEmacs. More complex tests may require
+substantial temporary scaffolding to create the environment that elicits
+the bugs, but the top-level Makefile and @file{test-harness.el} handle
+the running and collection of results from the @code{Assert},
+@code{Check-Error}, @code{Check-Error-Message}, and @code{Check-Message}
+macros.
+
+In general, you should avoid using functionality from packages in your
+tests, because you can't be sure that everyone will have the required
+package. However, if you've got a test that works, by all means add it.
+Simply wrap the test in an appropriate test, add a notice that the test
+was skipped, and update the @code{skipped-test-reasons} hashtable.
+Here's an example from @file{syntax-tests.el}:
+
+@example
+;; Test forward-comment at buffer boundaries
+(with-temp-buffer
+
+ ;; try to use exactly what you need: featurep, boundp, fboundp
+ (if (not (fboundp 'c-mode))
+
+ ;; We should provide a standard function for this boilerplate,
+ ;; probably called `Skip-Test' -- check for that API with C-h f
+ (let* ((reason "c-mode unavailable")
+ (count (gethash reason skipped-test-reasons)))
+ (puthash reason (if (null count) 1 (1+ count))
+ skipped-test-reasons)
+ (Print-Skip "comment and parse-partial-sexp tests" reason))
+
+ ;; and here's the test code
+ (c-mode)
+ (insert "// comment\n")
+ (forward-comment -2)
+ (Assert (eq (point) (point-min)))
+ (let ((point (point)))
+ (insert "/* comment */")
+ (goto-char point)
+ (forward-comment 2)
+ (Assert (eq (point) (point-max)))
+ (parse-partial-sexp point (point-max)))))
+@end example
+
+@code{Skip-Test} is intended for use with features that are normally
+present in typical configurations. For truly optional features, or
+tests that apply to one of several alternative implementations (eg, to
+GTK widgets, but not Athena, Motif, MS Windows, or Carbon), simply
+silently omit the test.
+
+
+@node A Summary of the Various XEmacs Modules, Allocation of Objects in XEmacs Lisp, Regression Testing XEmacs, Top
@chapter A Summary of the Various XEmacs Modules
@cindex modules, a summary of the various XEmacs
* Modules for Interfacing with the Operating System::
* Modules for Interfacing with X Windows::
* Modules for Internationalization::
+* Modules for Regression Testing::
@end menu
@node Low-Level Modules
different colors, for easy reading. The C support is provided so that
this is fast.
+As of 21.4.10, bugs introduced at the very end of the 21.2 series in the
+``syntax properties'' code were fixed, and highlighting is acceptably
+quick again. However, presumably more improvements are possible, and
+the places to look are probably here, in the defun-traversing code, and
+in @file{syntax.c}, in the comment-traversing code.
@example
@code{forward-sexp}, and by @file{font-lock.c} to locate quoted strings,
comments, etc.
+@c #### Break this out into a separate node somewhere!
+Syntax codes are implemented as bitfields in an int. Bits 0-6 contain
+the syntax code itself, bit 7 is a special prefix flag used for Lisp,
+and bits 16-23 contain comment syntax flags. From the Lisp programmer's
+point of view, there are 11 flags: 2 styles X 2 characters X @{start,
+end@} flags for two-character comment delimiters, 2 style flags for
+one-character comment delimiters, and the prefix flag.
+
+Internally, however, the characters used in multi-character delimiters
+will have non-comment-character syntax classes (@emph{e.g.}, the
+@samp{/} in C's @samp{/*} comment-start delimiter has ``punctuation''
+(here meaning ``operator-like'') class in C modes). Thus in a mixed
+comment style, such as C++'s @samp{//} to end of line, is represented by
+giving @samp{/} the ``punctuation'' class and the ``style b first
+character of start sequence'' and ``style b second character of start
+sequence'' flags. The fact that class is @emph{not} punctuation allows
+the syntax scanner to recognize that this is a multi-character
+delimiter. The @samp{newline} character is given (single-character)
+``comment-end'' @emph{class} and the ``style b first character of end
+sequence'' @emph{flag}. The ``comment-end'' class allows the scanner to
+determine that no second character is needed to terminate the comment.
@example
+@node Modules for Regression Testing
+@section Modules for Regression Testing
+@cindex modules for regression testing
+@cindex regression testing, modules for
+
+@example
+test-harness.el
+base64-tests.el
+byte-compiler-tests.el
+case-tests.el
+ccl-tests.el
+c-tests.el
+database-tests.el
+extent-tests.el
+hash-table-tests.el
+lisp-tests.el
+md5-tests.el
+mule-tests.el
+regexp-tests.el
+symbol-tests.el
+syntax-tests.el
+@end example
+
+@file{test-harness.el} defines the macros @code{Assert},
+@code{Check-Error}, @code{Check-Error-Message}, and
+@code{Check-Message}. The other files are test files, testing various
+XEmacs modules.
+
+
+
@node Allocation of Objects in XEmacs Lisp, Dumping, A Summary of the Various XEmacs Modules, Top
@chapter Allocation of Objects in XEmacs Lisp
@cindex allocation of objects in XEmacs Lisp
different section of code.
@end enumerate
+If you don't understand whether to @code{GCPRO} in a particular
+instance, ask on the mailing lists. A general hint is that @code{prog1}
+is the canonical example
+
@cindex garbage collection, conservative
@cindex conservative garbage collection
Given the extremely error-prone nature of the @code{GCPRO} scheme, and
projects / chise / xemacs-chise.git.1 / blobdiff