How many of these are part of different code generators? We only support one architecture per compiler binary _and_ code generators for new architectures often start as (partial) copies of existing code generators, so it's normal that they have a lot of duplicate internal errors, but it doesn't matter.

OTOH, I'm sure there are also still duplicates in generic code and within single architectures, but to find those you have to look exclusively at the generic files in combination with those for a single architecture (which may be in multiple directories, e.g. compiler/x86 and compiler/i386 for the i386 target).

Jonas

----- Reply to message -----
Subject: Re: [fpc-devel] duplicate internal error numbers Date: trešd., 7 okt. 2020, 14:16
From: Jonas Maebe via fpc-devel
To:

It's still plenty potential duplicates. Got 339 unique cases to investigate. A lot manual labor. As i understand that automated changes are not welcomed.

Normally internal error numbers need to be unique so it's easier to identify where the compiler's internal state went bad.  I have submitted a few patches of my own to rectify number clashes, but these are only in cases where they clash on the same platform (e.g. between two platform-specific routines or a platform-specific and a platform-agnostic routine).

To help minimise clashes when writing code, I format the numbers as follows: yyyymmddij, where yyyy, mm and dd represent the year, month and day that I wrote the code segment respectively, i is an index that I generally keep constant within a routine (so different routines that I write on the same day have differing indices) and j is a secondary index used to differentiate individual internal errors wthin the same routine.  The indices aren't set in stone though.

When two different programmers write code on the same day in different parts of the compiler, there's bound to be a clash eventually.  Usually though I only submit a patch to change them if I run into a clash during development that either I think could cause confusion, or already has (i.e. I've triggered the internal error and I can't identify which routine is at fault).  Long story short, I only change an individual clash during these instances.

I would advise against an automated change in case it changes too many internal error numbers and when a third party raises an issue where the compiler has triggered one, we can no longer identify where in the code base that the state has gone bad because none of the numbers match any more.

Sorry - I probably went off on a bit of a tangent there.

Gareth aka. Kit

----- Reply to message -----
Subject: Re: [fpc-devel] duplicate internal error numbers Date: trešd., 7 okt. 2020, 16:40
From: J. Gareth Moreton via fpc-devel
To:

When two different programmers write code on the same day in different parts of the compiler, there's bound to be a clash eventually. 

good example was z80 and xtensa

I would advise against an automated change in case it changes too many internal error numbers and when a third party raises an issue where the compiler has triggered one, we can no longer identify where in the code base that the state has gone bad because none of the numbers match any more.

It is not that much problem. Most of internal errors would not be triggered by end users. Opened new ticket in bug tracer https://bugs.freepascal.org/view.php?id=37888

Marģers . via fpc-devel schrieb am Do., 8.
Okt. 2020, 12:39:

That is kinda the point. They *should* not be triggered, but when they are triggered they should be found. This is especially important as most users are using release versions while we are working on trunk.

Regards,
Sven

----- Reply to message -----
Subject: Re: [fpc-devel] duplicate internal error numbers Date: ceturtd., 8 okt. 2020, 19:39
From: Sven Barth via fpc-devel
To: FPC developers' list

There are 555 internal error numbers changed of 4300+. It's about 13%. What's the probability that one of changed number will be triggered until next release. One or two in a year (or none). As i see it, it's just decision to make to accept or reject the patch. I was curios how much duplicate internal error are there. A lot. Now you know that as well.