Compiler warnings exist to warn you of possible problems. You should pay attention to compiler warnings. If you get a warning, you should change your code so that the warning is not triggered.
The most common warnings are related to branch-out-of-range warnings, and unused label warnings.
If you get a branch-out-of-range warning, it probably means your routine is too long. Make it smaller by moving code into subroutines. If the routine is not too large, but you still have this sort of warning, you can use the 'LONG' macro in front of the branch to get rid of the warning.
If you have warnings about unreferenced variables, comment out the variables, or use the ForceRef macro to force a reference to the variable in question.
The kernel is rife with EC code. All of the graphics routines validate the graphics-state handle which is passed in di. The memory routines validate the handles passed in bx. This code allows bugs to be caught early, when the mistake is an obvious one. Without this sort of EC code, these bugs would be caught much later when some obscure side-effect shows up.
You should take the same approach with your own code. If you are writing an API that other developers will use you should provide EC code that validates the parameters which are passed to your API level routines.
If you are writing modules of an application, or are creating APIs for internal use, you should seriously consider scheduling time to write EC code to validate what is passed to these internal APIs.
EC code can be valuable internally, not only for situations where you wish to validate parameters to functions, but also internally to verify that the data you are using is correct. This sort of thing can help you locate bugs where bad pointers or corrupted data might cause problems:
mov cx, ds:[di].OI_ruleCount ruleLoop: EC < cmp cx, MAXIMUM_RULE_COUNT > EC < ERROR_A RULE_COUNT_TOO_LARGE >
This code example will catch the possibility of the instance data being uninitialized, or somehow corrupted. It will catch the case where the pointer (ds:di) is somehow not correct (perhaps the object or heap moved due to some earlier action). Finally, it will verify that actions within the loop do not cause cx to be corrupted.
Remember, not all bugs will cause a corruption of data or a crash. It is possible that a bad value in CX might only cause some delay, or possibly an attempt to interpret bad data.
These are all extremely important if you are writing a subsystem that is responsible for managing data-structures. Currently our system includes code to validate an entire text object (and the various related data- structures), the entire system heap, an entire lmem heap, etc. These have proved invaluable in tracking down difficult problems. If you write this code at the same time that you are creating your data-management routines, it can help you from the very beginning, and it will take less effort to code and maintain the data-structure validation routines.
It is OK to keep around extra data in order to help you verify your own data-structures, as long as this data does not exist in the non-EC version. It is important to keep this data separate. For instance it is more appropriate to keep a separate array of extra EC data, than it is to add fields to a data-structure, but only in the EC code. This is especially true if you are dealing with data which will be saved to a file. You want to be able to use the same files in the EC and non-EC versions of your code.
Sometimes it may make sense to keep a totally separate "brain-dead" algorithm around to verify that your highly optimized approach is truly working correctly. For instance it may make sense to add EC code to a sorting algorithm that actually verifies that the entries end up sorted.
Your test code is important. Spend as much time designing and documenting your test code as you would in designing and debugging the systems which this code will test.
Checking the integrity of your data-structures will give you (and the users of your code) a confirmation that your code is working as expected. In a database program I wrote, it was possible for a sequence of actions to corrupt a database item other than the one the user was looking at (a random scribbling bug). If I had used integrity checking code, I would have identified this bug at the time it happened rather than spending weeks tracking a problem that didn't actually make itself apparent until much later.
EC code is not a part of your product. If it makes the code larger and slower, that's fine. The only exception is when it makes the code so large and slow that it is completely unusable. A slowdown of 50% in the EC version may be perfectly acceptable.
Esp provides the ability to create meaningful enumerated types, structures, and records. Take advantage of these to produce code which is more readable, and which gives a clearer indication of what you mean.
Currently the system will do this with the main heap and the lmem heap. If you are maintaining your own local data-structure heap, you should consider destroying data when it is freed so that it won't be mistaken for useful data later.
Once you have done a good job designing and documenting your code, you should make sure that you take the time to focus on what can go wrong. This should start in the design phase ("what happens if the file doesn't exist?") and should continue through coding. During the coding phase you should take care to document (in your code) the potential problems that the code is handling. This will allow other people who will be working in your code to understand the problems that they will need to deal with.
In our system, over/underflow is rare, but there are frequently problems associated with signed versus unsigned values. In particular making the mistake of using jg instead of ja can result in your code failing miserably when an index becomes >=0x8000. It is very rare that you will want to used signed comparisons or branches, so pay close attention to your code in the cases where you do.
If you find yourself implementing a routine that contains several special actions for a certain case, spend the time to examine your approach to see if you can get rid of the special case. The simpler the code (i.e. the fewer the special cases) the easier it will be to debug.
Code with lots of branches is harder to debug. You must step through both paths to verify that it works, and even worse, it can create several new paths through your whole code body. Where possible, remove "if/then" structures. Table lookups are great for this, and there may be other approaches that work. Code that does not branch is incredibly easy to debug. Try to write as much of it as you can.
Last modified: Thu Jan 8 10:44:22 PST