gm.pwn(13) : error 001: expected token: ";", but found "-identifier-"
gm.pwn(13) : warning 204: symbol is assigned a value that is never used: "SQL"
Pawn compiler 3.10.8 Copyright (c) 1997-2006, ITB CompuPhase
1 Error.
[Finished in 0.2s]
Can anyone help me fix this please?
It's doesn't say that ; is an -identifier-.
It says, that it founds some -identifier- instead of ;.
So, you probably forgot about ; at the end of some expression.
By the way: If you want us to help you, you should show us a part of a code, where the error occurs.
Related
This is the code i am running in an online compiler
-module(helloworld).
-export([start/0, call/2]).
start() ->
% error in the below line as syntax error before: ')'
Pid = spawn(?MODULE, call, ["hello","world"] ),
io:fwrite("~p",[Pid]).
call(Arg1, Arg2) ->
io:format("~p ~p~n", [Arg1, Arg2]).
I tried erlang compiler online in tutorialspoint and can reproduce problem. I guess it got some problem in compiler, it's not your fault, just continue investigate Erlang :)
https://www.tutorialspoint.com/compile_erlang_online.php
You can change to this compiler online
https://paiza.io/en/projects/new?language=erlang
//Edit:
The issue may become from editer of tutorialspoint. It makes compiler don't understand function spawn/3, please add double quoute '' for spawn/3 function like below, It will compile and run:
Pid = 'spawn'(?MODULE, call, ["hello","world"] ),
I'm pretty new to vhdl and I can't seem to find the error in my code, I keep getting these errors.
alarm.vhdl (line 19, col 5): (E10) Syntax error at/before reserved symbol 'if'.
Error occurred within 'ARCHITECTURE' at line 16, column 28 in alarm.vhdl.
alarm.vhdl (line 31, col 9): (E56) Expected ;, but got IF
alarm.vhdl (line 31, col 9): (E10) Syntax error at/before reserved symbol 'if'.
alarm.vhdl (line 33, col 4): (E10) Syntax error at/before reserved symbol 'end'.
Is there something wrong with my if statement?
library IEEE;
use ieee.std_logic_1164.all;
entity alarm is
port( master_switch: in std_logic;
door_sensor: in std_logic;
wheel_sensor: in std_logic;
clock: in std_logic;
Z : out std_logic;
J : in std_logic_vector(1 downto 0);
K : in std_logic_vector(1 downto 0);
Q : inout std_logic_vector(1 downto 0);
Qcomp : inout std_logic_vector(1 downto 0) );
end alarm;
architecture behav of alarm is
begin
if clock='1' then
J(1) <= Qcomp(1) AND Q(0) AND master_switch AND door_sensor;
K(1) <= Q(0) OR Q(1);
J(0) <= Qcomp(0);
K(0) <= Qcomp(1) OR (Q(0) AND Q(1));
Q(1) <= ((NOT K(1)) AND Q(1)) OR (J(1) AND Qcomp(1));
Q(0) <= ((NOT K(0)) AND Q(0)) OR (J(0) AND Qcomp(0));
Z <= Q(1) AND Qcomp(0);
end if;
end;
end behav;
The if statement here must be in a process, with clock in its sensitivity list. (Also you want to use rising_edge(clock) rather than clock = '1' for correct synthesis)
on nebulous syntax error messages
alarm.vhdl (line 19, col 5): (E10) Syntax error at/before reserved symbol 'if'.
Error occurred within 'ARCHITECTURE' at line 16, column 28 in alarm.vhdl.
This is caused by a lack of a label preceding the reserved word if, presumed to be a generate statement scheme.
The issue being as Brian says that an if statement which is a sequential statement can only appear in a process, or a subprogram (a function or a procedure).
The apparent poor quality of the error message comes from how the error is detected in the parser.
The statements found inside an architecture statement part are concurrent statements:
architecture_statement_part ::=
{ concurrent_statement }
The curly brackets meaning zero or more concurrent statements are allowed (An architecture statement part can be empty).
concurrent_statement ::=
block_statement
| process_statement
| concurrent_procedure_call_statement
| concurrent_assertion_statement
| concurrent_signal_assignment_statement
| component_instantiation_statement
| generate_statement
A block statement begins with the reserved word block.
A process statement beginning with the reserved word process or postponed.
A concurrent procedure call statement beginning with the a procedure name or the reserved word postponed.
A concurrent assertion statement beginning with the reserved word assert.
A concurrent signal assignment statement beginning with the name of a signal or the keyword postponed.
A component instantiation statement beginning with the reserved word component, or the reserved word entity, or the reserved word configuration, or the name of an entity.
All the above concurrent statements may be optionally labeled, the label preceding either a reserved word or a name (an identifier, which can be a selected name).
The last choice for the generate statement requires a label and can have the reserved word if.
generate_statement ::=
generate_label :
generation_scheme generate
[ { block_declarative_item }
begin ]
{ concurrent_statement }
end generate [ generate_label ] ;
generation_scheme ::=
for generate_parameter_specification
| if condition
label ::= identifier
We see that after a mandatory label we'd expect to see the generation scheme, either indicated by the the reserved word if or the reserved word for.
The parser tested for these in order. You could note that concurrent_statement is not a terminal. One of the various concurrent statements would be a terminal production. Without the ability to hang an error message on a non-terminal everything will get swept up in the last concurrent statement choice (generate statement).
Rather than tell you there's something wrong with the generate statement:
ghdl -a alarm.vhdl
alarm.vhdl:19:1: a generate statement must have a label
alarm.vhdl:19:14: 'generate' is expected instead of 'then'
The parser you used told there's simply something wrong around the reserved word if. Although there is only one concurrent statement that can 'start' with if, the lack of a mandatory label aside.
A VHDL parser can operate with a look ahead of one, assuming semantic predicates are used (e.g. entity_name).
It's sometime possible to use a larger look ahead to avoid backtracking (which makes no sense in the last concurrent statement choice). There was an expression followed by the reserved word then, which disqualifies the current concurrent statement as a generate statement.
It's possible to produce a better error message:
nvc -a alarm.vhdl
** Error: syntax error, unexpected if, expecting process
File alarm.vhdl, Line 19
if clock='1' then
^^
This determining that if is inappropriate without being preceded by a label, and in the case of nvc noting that an if statement is a sequential statement, allowed in, in this case a process statement.
(Notice Brian's answer said "The if statement here must be in a process,..").
Note that neither ghdl nor nvc preceded beyond this error. ghdl treats the current portion of the design description as a generate statement (no non-terminal error messages), while nvc is capable of non-terminal error messages (not using a bison construct in this case). Your tool vendor's parser throws up it's hands a bit sooner but attempts a poor non-terminal error message.
However, there's no excuse or need for preceding further:
alarm.vhdl (line 31, col 9): (E56) Expected ;, but got IF
alarm.vhdl (line 31, col 9): (E10) Syntax error at/before reserved symbol 'if'.
alarm.vhdl (line 33, col 4): (E10) Syntax error at/before reserved symbol 'end'.
Why is an unknown concurrent statement choice being attempted when any error in parsing is sufficient to invalidate the output? There's an attempt to give more context, however referencing line and columns as well as reserved words is likely not the way to do it.
You could also note that nvc's error message can have shortcomings. Label the if statement and you get:
nvc -a alarm.vhdl
** Error: syntax error, unexpected then
File alarm.vhdl, Line 20
if clock='1' then
^^^^
The shortcoming here is that it doesn't tell you it's parsing a generate statement (nor does you're tool vendor's parser).
While ghdl gets a bit more specific:
ghdl -a alarm.vhdl
alarm.vhdl:20:14: 'generate' is expected instead of 'then'
ghdl: compilation error
And one of the things all three of these parsers has in common is that they all required VHDL language expertise to interpret.
In these cases a tool vendor could provide an expanded narrative optionally to explain how the message was produced.
For instance Modelsim has a verror facility which produces a narrative description when provided with an error number.
In your case you appear to be synthesizing the VHDL design description directly. In general a synthesis tool assumes some familiarity with VHDL, which might indicate you'd be better off simulating a design first or failing that based on complexity using a different analyzer to root out syntax errors.
Your error messages appear to come from Cypress's WARP, the Reference Manual (1996, PDF,1.4 MB) tells us:
E10 :Syntax error at/before reserved symbol ‘%s’.
You used a reserved word in an illegal fashion, e.g., as a signal or variable name.
And you can see the message is a bit less than helpful.
WARP is considered obsolete intended to support a discontinued CPLD line and discontinued itself in 2012, otherwise lacking in support. It reinforces the notion of analyzing your VHDL designs with another tool.
I compile a fortran 77 code using gfortran and get the following error:
10 open (23,file=outfile,status='old',access='append',err=10)
1
Warning: Branch at (1) may result in an infinite loop
This happens several times.
One of the output files looks like the following:
^L6a10È <90> ) &<9b>LÓLÓLÕ<91><90> <90> <90> È <8e><9b>LÓLÓLÕ<93>2
!MERCURY ¢¤õ/!ô<8a><8a><90> ÿ<90> ÿ<90> ÿÌÖÏ©ü}M<91>
"VENUS «}>±{©±<8b><90> ÿ<90> ÿ<90> ÿʺ93¿<8d>d<91>
However, it should just look like a table of text.
Any ideas?
Your line of code
10 open (23,file=outfile,status='old',access='append',err=10)
specifies that the open statement should transfer control to itself (label 10) in case an error is encountered, so any error could trigger an infinite loop. It also suppresses the output of error messages. If you want to just check for an error status, I would suggest using the iostat and/or iomsg (Fortran 2003) arguments:
open (23, file=outfile, status='old', access='append', iostat=ios, iomsg=str)
Here ios is an integer that will be zero if no errors occur and nonzero otherwise, and str is a character variable that will record the corresponding error message.
The err= argument in your open statement specifies a statement label to branch to should the open fail for some reason. Your code specifies a branch to the line labelled 10 which happens to be the line containing the open statement. This is probably not a good idea; a better idea would be to branch to a line which deals gracefully with an error from the open statement.
The warning from gfortran is spot on.
As to the apparent garbage in your output file, without sight of the code you use to write the garbage (or what you think are pearls perhaps) it's very difficult to diagnose and fix that problem.
list<string> logs;
GetLogs(logs);
string first=logs.front();
**string last=logs.back();**
At this point I'm getting progeam got SIGILL in GDB
My GetLogs() function definition is:
int GetLogs(list<string>& logs){
logs.push_back("Log.001");
logs.push_back("Log.002");
logs.push_back("Log.003");
return 0;
}
When Program got this error I can see the values
p first
Log.001
p last
Log.003
What's wrong with my code??
I got the solution. Sorry guys but GDB was showing the SIGILL error on the wrong line.
I was getting the error because we have a logging mechanism which uses formatted input like fprintf. But I gave %s with string that is making this problem. Thanks you so much for your patience
first.c_str() and last.c_str() solved it.
I've been fooling with the MSVC 2008 immediate window for the last few hours and I'm flabbergasted with both myself and Microsoft... It probably doesn't help that I stumbled on this mystery at bedtime and it's now 6 hours later. :)
Please see the following:
? "1234567\\87654321\\"
CXX0026: Error: bad format string
I've tried the above several ways in the immediate window and... Nothing. No amount of backslashes gets rid of the error. Removing the backslashes is the only way to solve it.
Does the expression evaluator have something against double backslash in a wide string?
For what it's worth, the immediate window fooling was motivated by the following:
Line 107 is:
size_t endpos = str.find_last_not_of( L”\\/” );
file.cpp(107) : error C2017: illegal escape sequence
file.cpp(107) : error C2017: illegal escape sequence
file.cpp(107) : error C2065: 'L”' : undeclared identifier
file.cpp(107) : error C2065: '”' : undeclared identifier
My questions are:
What's up with the 4 errors on line 107?
What's up with the immediate window? I remember this kind of thing working there a year or so ago. I applied a service pack to MSVC 2008 about 6 months ago but I didn't use it heavily until now.
size_t endpos = str.find_last_not_of( L”\\/” ); // no
size_t endpos = str.find_last_not_of( L"\\/" ); // yes
Beware of code that you copied off a website, maybe a blog post. The author may well have used a word processor, one that implements 'smart quotes'. If you look closely at the first and the second line you'll see the difference. Your compiler will only like the straight double-quotes.
It doesn't quite explain your problem with the Immediate Window, it works when I try your string as shown. Maybe it doesn't quite look like it either.