TheBackShed.com

Forum Index : Microcontroller and PC projects : MM170 and MM plus differences.

Author

Message

Bizzie
Senior Member

Joined: 06/07/2014
Location: Australia
Posts: 185

Posted: 03:23am 08 Jul 2020

Copy link to clipboard

Print this post

I have a strange thing happening!
You may have seen my comment in the post ""Idle curiosity about internal stack space" "

Re the behaviour of a MM170 and an MMplus board (GCMICROBOARD2B).

Here is another problem I have turned up.

The 170MM first

? MM.DEVICE$
Micromite MkII
> ? MM.VER
5.0408
> new
> xmodem r
Saved 596 bytes
> list
Sub RadioSend(d As INTEGER,s As INTEGER,msg As STRING)
Local STRING qq$
Local INTEGER chk,m
qq$=ZPad$(d)+ZPad$(s)+msg
For m=1 To Len(qq$):chk=chk+Asc(Mid$(qq$,m,1)):Next
qq$=Chr$(STX)+Hex$(chk,4)+Chr$(GS)+ENCRYPT$(qq$)+Chr$(ETX)
Print#io, String$(DoPreamble,Chr$(&HFE))+qq$;
Pause Len(qq$)' wait for the packet to go
End Sub

Function ZPad$(x As INTEGER)
ZPad$ = Right$("000" + Str$(x), 3)
End Function

Function ENCRYPT$(A$)
Local N,P As INTEGER
Local B$
P=1
For N=1 To Len(A$)
B$=B$+Hex$(Asc(Mid$(A$,N,1),2) Xor Asc(Mid$(KEY$,P,1)),2)
P=P+1:If P>Len(KEY$) Then P=1
Next
ENCRYPT$=B$
End Function
> radiosend 1,0,"test"
02E130303130303074657374
>

And the PLUS

? MM.DEVICE$
Micromite Plus
> ? MM.VER
5.0408
> new
> xmodem r
Saved 596 bytes
> list
Sub RadioSend(d As INTEGER,s As INTEGER,msg As STRING)
Local STRING qq$
Local INTEGER chk,m
qq$=ZPad$(d)+ZPad$(s)+msg
For m=1 To Len(qq$):chk=chk+Asc(Mid$(qq$,m,1)):Next
qq$=Chr$(STX)+Hex$(chk,4)+Chr$(GS)+ENCRYPT$(qq$)+Chr$(ETX)
Print#io, String$(DoPreamble,Chr$(&HFE))+qq$;
Pause Len(qq$)' wait for the packet to go
End Sub

Function ZPad$(x As INTEGER)
ZPad$ = Right$("000" + Str$(x), 3)
End Function

Function ENCRYPT$(A$)
Local N,P As INTEGER
Local B$
P=1
For N=1 To Len(A$)
B$=B$+Hex$(Asc(Mid$(A$,N,1),2) Xor Asc(Mid$(KEY$,P,1)),2)
P=P+1:If P>Len(KEY$) Then P=1
Next
ENCRYPT$=B$
End Function
> radiosend 1,0,"test"
01C074657374
>

You may note the variable DoPreamble is not defined "that's OK" as it is zero. Yes just tested it made no difference.

Now to the real problem! Note the output is different WHY?

This code was written by CaptainBoing and can be found on the fruits of the shed.

Anyone got any comments/suggestion before I reload MMbasic on the PLUS?

Rob White

led-bloon

Senior Member

Joined: 21/12/2014
Location: Australia
Posts: 202

Posted: 04:59am 08 Jul 2020

Copy link to clipboard

Print this post

In Function ENCRYPT$(A$)
Try, initialising B$ before use:
Local B$=""
Worth a try!
led

Miss you George

Bizzie
Senior Member

Joined: 06/07/2014
Location: Australia
Posts: 185

Posted: 05:38am 08 Jul 2020

Copy link to clipboard

Print this post

Sorry as usual all my fault!!

I had left the library in place, there was a duplicate ZPad$ function in the library but with different output! I believe this was being called. Deleting the library gave me identical results. Not sure why the duplicates did not cause an error.

A lesson to anyone trying to use the HumanTime and Unixtime routines and the networking routines.

Spent quite some time chasing this - Oh the fun of programming!!

Rob White

Geoffg

Guru

Joined: 06/06/2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 3165

Posted: 05:45am 08 Jul 2020

Copy link to clipboard

Print this post

I'm sorry but you will need to be much more specific. �We could embark on a journey of discovery and spend a deal of time reverse engineering your code to guess what you want to do but a something more succinct would be much better (and will get you a good response).

Can you distil the issue down to just a few lines of code with a proper explanation?

EDIT: You beat me to it. But the message remains the same... reduce the issue to a few lines of code. No one wants to spend time digging through obscure code to provide help.

Geoff
Edited 2020-07-08 15:49 by Geoffg

Geoff Graham - http://geoffg.net

Bizzie
Senior Member

Joined: 06/07/2014
Location: Australia
Posts: 185

Posted: 06:49am 08 Jul 2020

Copy link to clipboard

Print this post

What I am trying to say there is an inconsistency between the reporting of errors within a program to one the command line. When the library contains a function of the SAME NAME If I load a function into the library eg:-

These examples are with the MMplus as above.

> library list
Function ZPad$(x As INTEGER)
Print "this is ZPad"
End Function
>

And I then type this as a program into memory :-

> list
Print zpad$

Function zpad$()

zpad$ = "This is zPad$ main memory"
End Function

and run the code by typing RUN I get

> run
[LIBRARY] Function ZPad$(x As INTEGER)
Error: Duplicate name
>

As I would hope, may take some time to work this error out as NO mention duplicate is in the library.
BUT if I type the following at the command prompt I get something different:-

> print zpad$()
this is ZPad

>

NO mention of an error. Now I use the command line regularly to test routines, in this case I was not aware of an error just unexpected results.

Note also if you look at my original post the results are being sent to the console from a print#io,.... command, I was not aware that if #io = 0 output goes to the console again no error reported. I will use this feature a lot more now I have found it.

Rob White

Geoffg

Guru

Joined: 06/06/2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 3165

Posted: 08:07am 08 Jul 2020

Copy link to clipboard

Print this post

OK, I get it. Thanks.

This basically comes down to MMBasic reporting an error in an intelligent way.

I have struggled with this for some time. The bottom line is that there is no way for an interpreter that fits into a micro controller to provide a sensible error message for all the many ways that someone can mangle a command line. At this time MMBasic catches the more obvious mistakes but some times it just trips off into somewhere obscure.

I'm afraid that this is just a case where the programmer will have to figure out the problem for themselves - as you have done.

Geoff

Geoff Graham - http://geoffg.net

Paul_L
Guru

Joined: 03/03/2016
Location: United States
Posts: 769

Posted: 09:39pm 08 Jul 2020

Copy link to clipboard

Print this post

Hey Geoff,

If you've stuffed the available microprocessor memory with sensible, verbose message text maybe it's time to drop back to less convenient message numbers and an available external text file linking the error number to some verbose text.

We ran into this at Pan Am with an early Sperry / Hawker Sideley test computer for the 707 autopilot. It ran on a PDP11 with limited core memory. The printed error list had 117,400 error messages. It numbered them based on ATA maintenance manual chapter definitions -- Chapter 23 = communications, 27 = fuel systems, 34 = navigation plus sub chapter numbers for each system. The resultant error code might look like 34.13.402 or something. That would break to 34=navigation, 13=VOR #1, 402=specific condition.

Us polacks have a pronounced propensity to perambulate through a polysyllabic vocabulary thus creating confusion with a profusion of pedantic polymorphism .... but sometimes it's better to just say 57 54 46.

Paul in NY

lizby
Guru

Joined: 17/05/2016
Location: United States
Posts: 3010

Posted: 10:56pm 08 Jul 2020

Copy link to clipboard

Print this post

Paul_L said sometimes it's better to just say 57 54 46

Superfluity, Paul, 8 characters to express 3.

PicoMite, Armmite F4, SensorKits, MMBasic Hardware, Games, etc. on fruitoftheshed

Paul_L
Guru

Joined: 03/03/2016
Location: United States
Posts: 769

Posted: 03:17am 10 Jul 2020

Copy link to clipboard

Print this post

lizby said

Paul_L said sometimes it's better to just say 57 54 46

Superfluity, Paul, 8 characters to express 3.

Now you've got it. That's polymorphism!

Paul in NY

Tinine
Guru

Joined: 30/03/2016
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1646

Posted: 07:30am 11 Jul 2020

Copy link to clipboard

Print this post

Paul_L said Hey Geoff,

If you've stuffed the available microprocessor memory with sensible, verbose message text maybe it's time to drop back to less convenient message numbers and an available external text file linking the error number to some verbose text.

We ran into this at Pan Am with an early Sperry / Hawker Sideley test computer for the 707 autopilot. It ran on a PDP11 with limited core memory. The printed error list had 117,400 error messages. It numbered them based on ATA maintenance manual chapter definitions -- Chapter 23 = communications, 27 = fuel systems, 34 = navigation plus sub chapter numbers for each system. The resultant error code might look like 34.13.402 or something. That would break to 34=navigation, 13=VOR #1, 402=specific condition.

Us polacks have a pronounced propensity to perambulate through a polysyllabic vocabulary thus creating confusion with a profusion of pedantic polymorphism .... but sometimes it's better to just say 57 54 46.

Paul in NY

Sounds reasonable to me. I don't clutter my MM code with strings but instead send binary numeric codes to my Android HMI via Bluetooth.

matherp
Guru

Joined: 11/12/2012
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 8567

Posted: 07:36am 11 Jul 2020

Copy link to clipboard

Print this post

Tips for how to completely put off a newcomer:

1: Have it print "error: 472" when they make the simplest code mistake
Edited 2020-07-11 17:36 by matherp

Tinine
Guru

Joined: 30/03/2016
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1646

Posted: 08:29pm 11 Jul 2020

Copy link to clipboard

Print this post

matherp said Tips for how to completely put off a newcomer:

1: Have it print "error: 472" when they make the simplest code mistake

I don't believe that being put off the MM is even possible

Grogster

Admin Group

Joined: 31/12/2012
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 9051

Posted: 03:06am 12 Jul 2020

Copy link to clipboard

Print this post

When I started programming in my teens, it was on an Atari 800XL, running at an amazing 1.8MHz with 64KB of RAM.

ATBASIC(Atari BASIC) had error codes like that. If it ran into a problem in the program, it would stop with something like "ERROR- 170", so it was a very common way to report errors in days gone past.

But, yeah, I do remember having to have the error list printed out beside the computer so that whenever I got one of those, I had to look up the list for the definition of the error.

Readable error messages are vastly better, but if space was a problem for new firmwares in the MM2, I would not care if the error reporting went back to numbers.

But matherp has a point - many people these days won't like error numbers and having to look up a list. Not that it is hard to do, but people just won't like it.

Smoke makes things work. When the smoke gets out, it stops!

robert.rozee
Guru

Joined: 31/12/2012
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 2285

Posted: 03:37am 12 Jul 2020

Copy link to clipboard

Print this post

would it be worthwhile and/or practical to think about having TWO levels of error checking. the first would be when you saved a program and it was tokenized, the second would be when running the program.

for example:

DO LOOP

would produce an error when the program was saved/tokenized. it would then NOT be necessary for the interpreter to look out for this syntax error.

an obvious problem would be how to solve the issue of a program that contains deliberate errors in portions of code that are not intended to ever run. for example:

GoTo start

here are some notes that are
not marked as comments, that
will nonetheless never be
seen by the interpreter.

start:
[...]

but there may be workarounds. the question is: would such a scheme simplify the interpreter and/or make it faster?

cheers,
rob :-)

Tinine
Guru

Joined: 30/03/2016
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1646

Posted: 08:56am 12 Jul 2020

Copy link to clipboard

Print this post

And then there is the "Lite" version which could be a candidate because that would be more for the experienced user who is running short on available program space.

Print this page

To reply to this topic, you need to log in.