Add TABLE statement#1247
Conversation
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #1247 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 86.24% 85.50% -0.75%
==========================================
Files 178 178
Lines 13299 13446 +147
==========================================
+ Hits 11470 11497 +27
- Misses 1829 1949 +120 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
pramodk
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I understand this is a draft but I quickly skimmed through it.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
503b040 to
25b8d83
Compare
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
25b8d83 to
407e7b8
Compare
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
Now tests the following: - whether FUNCTIONs support TABLEs - whether PROCEDUREs support TABLEs - what's the accuracy when using a TABLE vs. not using a table - whether the results of the calculation outside of the range [lowest, highest] is clipped to the functions evaluated at those arguments - whether changing the dependencies actually triggers recomputation of the table
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
It seems this will not error out at the parsing stage, but will at the compilation stage: due to redefinitions of -> Compiling arm64/ex.cpp
arm64/ex.cpp:220:17: error: redefinition of '_t_v1'
static double *_t_v1;
^
arm64/ex.cpp:218:17: note: previous definition is here
static double *_t_v1;
^
arm64/ex.cpp:221:17: error: redefinition of '_t_v2'
static double *_t_v2;
^
arm64/ex.cpp:219:17: note: previous definition is here
static double *_t_v2;
^
2 errors generated.so I think it's safe to assume NOCMODL does not support duplicate TABLE variables. I'll see if I can add this check in NMODL as part of one of the visitors. EDIT Fixed in #1280 |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
|
Logfiles from GitLab pipeline #214372 (:white_check_mark:) have been uploaded here! Status and direct links: |
Needs #1260.