[Resolved] Problem with Prototype

[Kwai chang caine]

Hello Fred

I have create a bad code(Like usually ) for try to use Prototype, i have never really understand
And obtain an error with v5.62 X86 (But i have tested with v5.70B4 X86 and it's the same thing)
Really sure that it's my fault , CHI say to me my code works with X64 and not X86
viewtopic.php?p=530237#p530237

So i have create a short example for try to show to you the problem
And effectively, a new time, this code works in X64 and not X86, is it normal ?
Perhaps a bad use of the prototype

Code: Select all

Prototype AllMessages(Param1$ = "", Param2$ = "", Param3$ = "")

Runtime Procedure MessageOneParameter(Text.s)
 MessageRequester("Only one Parameter", Text)
EndProcedure

Procedure CallProcedure(NomProcedure.s, Parameter$)
 
 *PtrProc = GetRuntimeInteger(NomProcedure + "()")
 Call.AllMessages = *PtrProc
 Call(Parameter$)
  
EndProcedure

CallProcedure("MessageOneParameter", "Hello it's KCC")
CallProcedure("MessageOneParameter", "Hello it's KCC")

I have also see, for not have the problem, i must replace

Code: Select all

Prototype AllMessages(Param1$ = "", Param2$ = "", Param3$ = "")

by

Code: Select all

Prototype AllMessages(Param1$ = "")

And for you have all the exemples, this is my original first "long" code, where i have found the problem

Code: Select all

Prototype AllMessages(Param1$ = "", Param2$ = "", Param3$ = "")

Runtime Procedure MessageWithoutParameter()
 MessageRequester("Without Parameter", "No parameter")
EndProcedure

Runtime Procedure MessageOneParameter(Text.s)
 MessageRequester("Only one Parameter", Text)
EndProcedure

Runtime Procedure MessageTwoParameters(Text1.s, Text2.s)
 MessageRequester("Two parameters", Text1 + Text2)
EndProcedure

Runtime Procedure MessageThreeParameters(Text1.s, Text2.s, Text3.s)
 MessageRequester("Three parameters", Text1 + Text2 + Text3)
EndProcedure

Procedure CallProcedure(NomProcedure.s, Parameter$ = "")
 
 *PtrProc = GetRuntimeInteger(NomProcedure + "()")
 Call.AllMessages = *PtrProc
 MaxParam = 0
 
 If Parameter$ <> ""
   
  MaxParam = CountString(Parameter$, ",") + 1
  Protected Dim ArrayParams.s(MaxParam)
 
  For i = 1 To MaxParam
   ArrayParams(i) = StringField(Parameter$, i, ",")
  Next
 
 EndIf
   
 Debug "Pre Call Size = " + ArraySize(ArrayParams())
 
 Select MaxParam
  Case 0
   Call()
  Case 1
   Call(ArrayParams(1))
   FreeArray(ArrayParams())
  Case 2
   Call(ArrayParams(1), ArrayParams(2))
   FreeArray(ArrayParams())
  Case 3
   Call(ArrayParams(1), ArrayParams(2), ArrayParams(3))
   FreeArray(ArrayParams())
 EndSelect
 
 Debug "Post Call Size = " + ArraySize(ArrayParams())
 Debug "------------------"
 
EndProcedure

CallProcedure("MessageWithoutParameter")
CallProcedure("MessageOneParameter", "Hello it's KCC")
CallProcedure("MessageTwoParameters", "Hello it's KCC a second time, but it's more long")
CallProcedure("MessageThreeParameters", "Hello it's KCC another time, and this time, it's one time too much")

Thanks and have a good day

[Little John]

I have create a bad code(Like usually ) for try to use Prototype, i have never really understand

Yes, obviously! So you better should not write a "bug report" ... This is really annoying.
Something like this belongs in "Codung questions". After being a board member for more than 12 years, you should know that in the meantime ...

Your code is wrong.
Solution: A procedure and the related prototype must have the same form, i.e. the same type of return value, and the same number and types of parameters

I only looked at your first code block. There you have to replace

Code: Select all

Runtime Procedure MessageOneParameter(Text.s)

e.g. with

Code: Select all

Runtime Procedure MessageOneParameter(Text.s, Param2$ = "", Param3$ = "")

Then it works with PB 32 bit and 64 bit (tested on Windows 10).

[chi]

Yes, obviously! So you better should not write a "bug report" ... This is really annoying.
Something like this belongs in "Codung questions". After being a board member for more than 12 years, you should know that in the meantime ...

Wow, seriously...

Your code is wrong.
Solution: A procedure and the related prototype must have the same form, i.e. the same type of return value, and the same number and types of parameters

But then the compiler should probably raise an error under x64

[Kwai chang caine]

Thanks a lot CHI for your kind and precious message above

Yes, obviously! So you better should not write a "bug report" ... This is really annoying.
Something like this belongs in "Codung questions".

But you are not correct with me

1/ You accused me to create several bug report, then that it's false, i have not count, but surely less of 10 in more than ten years
And several bug report of me, was true

2/ You have surely not read my previous THREAD
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=71911&start=15
where several MASTERS of programming help me to found the problem, and no one say to me :

A procedure and the related prototype must have the same form, i.e. the same type of return value, and the same number and types of parameters

Then all the kind members help me in this thread are incompetent ??

I have dare to create the bug report, because nobody found the problem in my code, and furthermore the kind and MASTER CHI say to me, perhaps it's a bug :
viewtopic.php?p=530237#p530237

Apart from a little typo (you wrote: MaxParam = CountString(Parametre$, ",") and not Parameter$) and the fact that arrays start with 0 (why allocate an empty element?), your example works perfectly fine with PB x64 but crashes with PB x86 because the ArraySize returns -1 after the first Call(ArrayParams(0))
I'd call this a bug

At my advice, it's when even a strange behavior when the X86 not do the same thing than the X64, no ??

Furthermore, the kind BREEZE4ME help me too and found with PrototypeC/ProcedureC the bug disappear
viewtopic.php?p=530302#p530302
Perhaps it's that the problem ?

And CHI answer

Unfortunately [ Debug "Post Call Size = " + ArraySize(ArrayParams()) ] still returns -1 (also on x64 now)

viewtopic.php?p=530309#p530309

After being a board member for more than 12 years, you should know that in the meantime ...

So, before attacking and accusing me of not respecting the rules of the forum, maybe you too would, as a board forum member, do well to respect the rules by helping those who do not know, and giving your precious opinion of real great programmer, in the first THREAD,
viewtopic.php?p=530197#p530197
before moving one of my rare questions from the section "BUG WINDOWS"

I'm really angry about you and your rudeness.
Before... i appreciated and admired you a lot, your inccorrection just show to me a side of your personality that disappoint me

That said, i thank you anyway for your help , ruined by your action this day.
I'm sorry, not being as good as you in programming, but know that despite appearances, PB is not a game for me, and that even if i can seem weak and unable every day.
if I'm funny, it's to thank the MASTERS for helping me, without asking anything in return.
So my deal, it's a little smile against their great knowledge, because what you want KCC can give to this champions and professionnals of programming ? but my subjects are always serious

I do my best to progress, and especially not to disturb the forum and all these great members who are kind enough to help me instead of argue me

[Little John]

Yes, obviously! So you better should not write a "bug report" ... This is really annoying.
Something like this belongs in "Codung questions".

But you are not correct with me

1/ You accused me to create several bug report

This is nothing but an insinuation. I just wrote about this one wrong bug report.

2/ You have surely not read my previous THREAD
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=71911&start=15

That's true. Before replying in one thread that you created, I'm not obligated to read before any other threads that you created.

A procedure and the related prototype must have the same form, i.e. the same type of return value, and the same number and types of parameters

Then all the kind members help me in this thread are incompetent ??

I am not participating in the other thread, but in this thread.
Obviously, it is the whole purpose of a prototype to tell the compiler the form of a procedure. If the form of a prototype would not matter, then there were no need to use prototypes at all.

I have dare to create the bug report, because nobody found the problem in my code, and furthermore the kind and MASTER CHI say to me, perhaps it's a bug :
viewtopic.php?p=530237#p530237

What you wrote here was not a serious bug report.

At the time when I replied in this thread, Chi had not written anything in this thread.
Before replying in one thread that you created, I'm not obligated to read before any other threads.

After being a board member for more than 12 years, you should know that in the meantime ...

So, before attacking and accusing me of not respecting the rules of the forum, maybe you too would, as a board forum member, do well to respect the rules by helping those who do not know, and giving your precious opinion of real great programmer, in the first THREAD,
viewtopic.php?p=530197#p530197

There is no such rule. Obviously, you do not understand how a forum like this works.

before moving one of my rare questions from the section "BUG WINDOWS"

I am neither a moderator nor an administrator on this forum. So I cannot move any messages here.

I'm really angry about you and your rudeness.

Before the effect comes the cause.
I am annoyed about coding questions that are asked in the "Bug reports" section
Do you have any idea what that means Dozens or maybe hundreds of people who read that, think that there might be a bug in their programs. Then maybe they will check their code and do some tests. Try to understand that you are not entitled to waste other people's time.

[Kwai chang caine]

I am neither a moderator nor an administrator on this forum. So I cannot move any messages here.

Excuse me, i believe it's you who have move my post
Sure it was better, the moderator who have move this post should have put a little word for explain that it was not a bug

What you wrote here was not a serious bug report.

And how can i know that, if i don"t ask why X64 and X86 are not the same behavior ?

Try to understand that you are not entitled to waste other people's time.

You have totaly right, but

1/ I have put my question like i must to do (So i have good put my question on the good section, right or not ?)

And effectively, a new time, this code works in X64 and not X86, is it normal ?

2/ We see the behavior (In the coding question already creating) is not the same between X86 and X64 and think it's perhaps a bug

3/ I create after, another THREAD, in "bug section" for ask to FRED, if it's a normal behavior or a bug behind this strange behavior

Obviously, you do not understand how a forum like this works.

What did I do wrong so that you bait me so much since the begining of this history ?

[Papala]

Once again, the "bug" was between the chair and the desk.

And how can i know that, if i don"t ask why X64 and X86 are not the same behavior ?

You'r right ! That's why you should ask before post a bug report.

I think what's Little John try to tell you is, ask other member what they think of your potential bug before post something in bug report... And I agree with him.

[Kwai chang caine]

For the bug and the chair, sure this sentence is created for KCC

So for good understand :

1/ Put my problem on "coding section" like i do usually
2/ if one good member (not kcc level) have a doubt, create a second post "is it a bug ?"
3/ if several good members (always not kcc kevel) say perhaps it's a bug, create a 3e post this time in "bug section" for ask to fred if the goods members have right

Is it what i must do for not have spanking ?

[Fred]

We move topic from "coding question" to "bug report" if needed, no need to create a new one. So if you are not sure (as you state it clearly in your first post), just post in coding question and that will be fine

[davido]

@Fred,
Thank you for the clarification.
I find your comments particularly helpful.

[Kwai chang caine]

Google English translate next

Bonjour FRED, trop heureux de pouvoir te parler un petit peu

Je me permet de te parler en français, car il y a déjà eu assez de mal entendu, alors que ma démarche primaire n'était que de faire avancer le schmilblick, et en aucun cas perturber le forum, comme m'en a accusé injustement, pour ne pas dire agressivement "Little John"
Maintenant je sais clairement comment il faut faire en ce qui concerne les rares bugs que j'aurais trouvé depuis de nombreuses années que je pratique PB.

Alors si j'ai bien compris en fin de compte rien, c'est toi et ton équipe qui se charge de le faire si vous voyez le problème dans un POST des "débutants" ou ailleurs
C'est vrai que tu es tellement discret que l'on oublie que tu dois en lire beaucoup plus que tu en donnes l'impression, et on a toujours peur que tu ne vois pas le problème noyé dans les nombreuses réponses
C'est pourquoi, je croyais qu'il fallait créer un nouveau post avec un exemple simple, pour te faire gagner du temps et aller directement au but
Jusqu'à présent, je les signalais dans un nouveau post en section bug, seulement une fois qu'un cador de la prog me l'avait confirmé ou avait un doute sur l'existence d'un problème.
Sauf les rares fois, ou j'étais sûr comme un grand que y'avait bien un problème, mais vu mon niveau ça n'a pas été les cas les plus fréquents

Tu vois, tes supers PROTOTRUCS me portent la poisse, je veux bien reconnaitre que c'est surement une avancée, mais à chaque fois que j'essaie de les "caresser" ils me mordent
J'ai essayé car je me dit, quand même,..... que si je ne fais jamais d'efforts, je ne progresserais jamais
Mais aussi pour te montrer que malgré que je donne l'impression (pour ne pas dire la certitude ) d'avoir le QI d'une huitre, je fais mon possible pour me rendre digne de ton travail, mais aussi de la gentille, généreuse et inlassable aide que me portent les copains à chaque fois que j'en ai besoin.

C'est vrai, tout inhibé du bulbe que je suis, j'en ai parfois marre depuis le temps que je connais PB, de jouer avec mon hochet, mon vélo à petites roulettes et mon youpala. Alors que jouer un peu avec les allumettes en faisant des roues arrières, un petit peu comme les copains MAITRES de la prog, comme il y en a tant sur ce site...c'est cool aussi
Bon une fois de plus KCC, à voulu voler trop haut en utilisant une fonction qu'il ne connaissait pas et qui visiblement ne l'aime pas non plus
Tu noteras quand même que sur le premier post, il est passé pleins de MAITRES et que personne n'a remarqué que j'utilisais mal les prototypes, en ne déclarant pas le bon nombre de paramètres

En fin de compte le seul qui m'en a parlé (certes un peu trop fort) c'est LittleJohn, que je remercie quand même, et immédiatement j'ai modifié mon code en conséquence
Avant

Code: Select all

Prototype AllMessages(Param1$ = "", Param2$ = "", Param3$ = "", Param4$ = "", Param5$ = "")

Aprés

Code: Select all

Prototype P0()
Prototype P1(Param1$ = "")
Prototype P2(Param1$ = "", Param2$ = "")
Prototype P3(Param1$ = "", Param2$ = "", Param3$ = "")
Prototype P4(Param1$ = "", Param2$ = "", Param3$ = "", Param4$ = "")
Prototype P5(Param1$ = "", Param2$ = "", Param3$ = "", Param4$ = "", Param5$ = "")

A ce propos, c'est dommage que les prototypes ne gèrent pas le nombre de paramètres, je suppose que si tu ne l'a pas fait c'est que ce n'était pas possible
Mais tu avoueras quand même que la doc (que pour une fois j'avais lue ) , peut porter à confusion

Cette fonctionnalité peut remplacer CallFunction() car elle présente quelques avantages: vérification du type de paramètre, du nombre de paramètres.

Donc j'me suis dit "Yala", une seule déclaration, et si y'a pas de paramètres...le prototruc le gérera...
Apparemment, comme pour la "section bug" c'est pas comme ça que ça marche

Voilà, toute l'histoire, et je suis content de t'expliquer ce que je ressent, car LittleJohn m'a fait beaucoup de peine, et j'ai ressenti une grande injustice en me faisant accuser de troller la section BUG, alors que je n'y suis presque jamais allé, et surtout d'avoir posé ma question directement dans cette dernière, alors que comme il m'accusait de ne pas l'avoir fait, j'avais bien créé ma question auparavant dans la section débutant (Section que je ne quitterais visiblement jamais d'ailleurs au passage )
Au final, il n'a pas fait attention au POST précédent, c'est ce que j'ai essayé de lui expliquer, et lui a cru que je lui demandait de lire toute les conneries que je peux dire dans la section débutant avant de me faire un reproche.
Je crois que je ne condamnerais même pas mon pire ennemi à une aussi rude tache
En fin de compte, on peut me reprocher pleins de choses, mais jamais de vouloir nuire à PB et/ou ses utilisateurs, et encore moins d'agressivité, si ce n'est pour me défendre lorsque je me sent traité injustement, ce que je ne supporte pas, car vous êtes tous tellement important à mes yeux d'ailleurs à un point qui m'étonne toujours moi-même

Je te souhaite une très bonne fin d'année et ne me lasse pas de te remercier pour tout le bonheur que tu m'auras apporté dans ma triste vie, en créant PureBasic et la communauté de copains formidables qui va avec et que j'aime tant

[Kwai chang caine]

Excuse GOOGLE, if it's the case, for the bad translate

Hello FRED, too happy to talk to you a little bit

I allow myself to speak to you in French, because there has already been enough badly heard, whereas my primary step was only to advance the schmilblick, and in no way to disturb the forum, as it accused me unjustly , not to say aggressively "Little John"
Now I know clearly how to deal with the rare bugs I have found for many years that I practice PB.

So if I have understood in the end nothing, it is you and your team that will do it if you see the problem in a POST of "beginners" or elsewhere
It is true that you are so discreet that we forget that you have to read much more than you give the impression, and we are always afraid that you do not see the problem drowned in the many answers
That's why I thought you had to create a new post with a simple example, to save you time and go straight to the point
Until now, I posted them in a new post in bug section, only after a cador of the program had confirmed it or had a doubt about the existence of a problem.
Except the rare times, or I was sure as a big thing that there was a problem, but considering my level it was not the most frequent cases

You see, your great PROTOTRUCS carry me bad luck, I want to recognize that it is surely a step forward, but every time I try to "caress" they bite me
I tried because I said to myself, nevertheless, ..... that if I never make efforts, I would never progress
But also to show you that although I give the impression (not to say the certainty ) of having the IQ of an oyster, I do my best to make myself worthy of your work, but also of the kind, generous and tireless help that my friends bring me whenever I need it.

It's true, everything inhibited the bulb that I am, I'm sometimes fed up since the time I know PB, playing with my rattle, my bike small wheels and my youpala. While playing a bit with the matches by making the rear wheels, a little bit like the mates masters of the prog, as there are so many on this site ... it's cool too
Well again KCC, wanted to fly too high using a function he did not know and obviously does not like it either
You will notice nevertheless that on the first post, it passed full of MASTERS and that nobody noticed that I used the prototypes badly, by not declaring the good number of parameters

In the end the only one who told me about it (certainly a bit too loud) is LittleJohn, whom I thank all the same, and immediately I modified my code accordingly
Before

Code: Select all

Prototype AllMessages(Param1$ = "", Param2$ = "", Param3$ = "", Param4$ = "", Param5$ = "")

After

Code: Select all

Prototype P0()
Prototype P1(Param1$ = "")
Prototype P2(Param1$ = "", Param2$ = "")
Prototype P3(Param1$ = "", Param2$ = "", Param3$ = "")
Prototype P4(Param1$ = "", Param2$ = "", Param3$ = "", Param4$ = "")
Prototype P5(Param1$ = "", Param2$ = "", Param3$ = "", Param4$ = "", Param5$ = "")

In this respect, it's a pity that the prototypes do not manage the number of parameters, I suppose that if you did not do it it was not possible
But you will still admit that the doc (that for once i had read it ), can be confusing

This feature can replace CallFunction () because it has some advantages: checking the type of parameter, the number of parameters.

So I'm says "Yala", a single statement, and if there are no parameters ... the prototruc will handle it ...
Apparently, as for the "bug section" that's not how it works

That's it, the whole story, and I'm happy to explain to you how I feel, because LittleJohn hurt me a lot, and I felt a great injustice in having me accused of trolling the BUG section, while I almost never went there, and especially having asked my question directly in the latter, whereas as he accuse me of not having done it, I had created my question before in the section beginner (Section that I would not leave visibly anyway )
In the end, he did not pay attention to the previous POST, that's what I tried to explain to him, and thought that I asked him to read all the bullshit i can say in the beginner section before to reproach me.
I do not think I would condemn even my worst enemy to such a hard spot
In the end, I can be blamed for many things, but never wanting to harm PB and/or its users, let alone aggression, if not to defend myself when I feel treated unfairly, what I can not stand because you are all so important to me besides to a point that always amazes me

I wish you a very good end of the year and do not get tired of thanking you for all the happiness that you have brought me in my sad life, creating PureBasic and the community of great friends that goes with and that I like so much

[Little John]

I think what's Little John try to tell you is, ask other member what they think of your potential bug before post something in bug report... And I agree with him.

Thank you!

So if you are not sure (as you state it clearly in your first post), just post in coding question and that will be fine

Thanks, Fred! That's exactly what I was trying to tell him. I hope that he will now accept it from you.

[the.weavster]

Thanks, Fred! That's exactly what I was trying to tell him.

It ain't what you do it's the way that you do it

[Little John]

It ain't what you do it's the way that you do it

I was annoyed by this strange "bug report" (and I also explained the reason why it is annoying ... not just for me). So please don't mix up cause and effect.