John Hayes tester is used in his core test suite, but also in other
test suites. It has two shortcomings:

- It does not work as expected if the stack is non-empty before the {.

- It does not check FP results if the system has a separate FP stack.

I have revised it to address both shortcomings. You can find the
result at

http://www.forth200x.org/tests/tester.fs

It is intended to be a drop-in replacement of the original.

In spirit of the original, I have strived to avoid any potential
non-portabilities and stayed as much within the CORE words as
possible; e.g., FLOATING words are used only if the FLOATING wordset
is present and the FP stack is separate.

There are a few things to be noted:

- Following the despicable practice of the original, this version sets
the base to HEX for everything that gets loaded later.
Floating-point input is ambiguous when the base is not decimal, so
you have to set it to decimal yourself when you want to deal with
decimal numbers.

Op Sun, 12 Aug 2007 12:12:33 GMT schreef Anton Ertl:

Coos Haak writes:

Anton Ertl wrote:

Krishna Myneni bellsouth.net> writes:

It's at
<http://www-personal.umich.edu/~williams/archive/forth/utilities/ftester.fs>.

The similarities in source code with my extension are interesting (in
particular, he performed similar code duplication and placed
additional Fs at the same places as I did).

However, it does not fix the empty-stack-only shortcoming, and the
only potential advantage it has over my extension is that the
approximate comparison can be more finely tuned.

You can also test multiple FP results with my extension, and there's
no need for F-> or F} there:

decimal { 0e fsincos -> 0e 1e }

Moreover, with my extension you can also test code that has mixed
integer and fp results:

decimal { s" 1.23" >float -> 1.23e true }

Anton Ertl wrote:

I should have given the link. Thanks.

Perhaps this tuning can be folded into your version (in particular, the use of
the ?EXACT flag to force exact fp comparisons).

Krishna Myneni bellsouth.net> writes:

The matching is exact by default (FSENSITIVITY is set to 0E), and you
can make it exact with

decimal 0e fsensitivity f!

Or do you mean that you want to have words EXACT?, SET-EXACT, SET-NEAR
as present in ftester.fsq?

Concerning the fine-tuning, I meant the REL-NEAR and ABS-NEAR stuff;
with FSENSITIVITY you can do either relative (negative FSENSITIVITY)
or absolute (positive FSENSITIVITY) approximate comparison, but not
both at once. Do you use that?

I just got back from a trip and saw this.

Anton Ertl wrote:

<http://www-personal.umich.edu/~williams/archive/forth/utilities/ftester.fs>.

:-)

I agree that empty-stack-only is a shortcoming.

Anton Ertl wrote:

Krishna Myneni wrote: