Some Eclipse Foundation services are deprecated, or will be soon. Please ensure you've read this important communication.

Bug 366798

Summary:	make primitive types part of the model
Product:	[Modeling] eTrice	Reporter:	Henrik Rentz-Reichert <hrr>
Component:	Core	Assignee:	Project Inbox <etrice.core-inbox>
Status:	CLOSED FIXED	QA Contact:
Severity:	enhancement
Priority:	P3	CC:	klaus.birken, ts
Version:	0.1.0
Target Milestone:	---
Hardware:	PC
OS:	Windows 7
Whiteboard:	0.2.0M1

Description Henrik Rentz-Reichert

2011-12-15 05:27:12 EST

In bug 366782 a problem of porting a model to Java is described.
This is due to the fact that Java doesn't support unsigned integer types but ROOM has them in the list of primitive types.

A general solution for this could be that primitive types are modeled too.
E.g.

PrimitiveType JavaPrimitives {
  int8 -> byte
  int16 -> short
  int32 -> int
  // etc.
}

Then this could be used in an ActorClass like

ActorClass Act {
  Structure {
    Attribute number: JavaPrimitives.int8
  }
}

A standard collection of primitive types could be defined as part of the modellib.

Comment 1 Thomas Schuetz

2011-12-15 17:35:09 EST

for more convenience I would suggest:

PrimitiveType int8 -> byte
PrimitiveType int16 -> short
PrimitiveType int32 -> int
  // etc.

this would allow a shorter notation:

ActorClass Act {
  Structure {
    Attribute number: int8
  }
}

imho the clustering of PrimitiveTypes (e.g. JavaPrimitives ) is not needed

Comment 2 Thomas Schuetz

2011-12-15 17:44:16 EST

for future functionality, especially model checking and test generators more detailed information about the types will be needed

PrimitiveType int8 -> byte {
  range=-128..127
}

There might also be requirements for more exotic types

PrimitiveType int40 -> int40 (on some DSPs)
PrimitiveType fixed1616 -> fixed1616 {
  fixpoint=16.16
}

Comment 3 Henrik Rentz-Reichert

2011-12-16 02:27:27 EST

(In reply to comment #1)
> imho the clustering of PrimitiveTypes (e.g. JavaPrimitives ) is not needed

I thought clustering those type declarations in a namespace would be a good idea.
But if this is desired it can be achieved by moving the declarations to a separate model.
This would allow one to write

RoomModel JavaPrimitiveTypes {
PrimitiveType int8 -> byte
PrimitiveType int16 -> short
PrimitiveType int32 -> int
  // etc.
}

RoomModel MyModel {
import model "JavaPrimitiveTypes.room"
ActorClass Act {
  Structure {
    Attribute number: JavaPrimitiveTypes.int8
  }
}}

or by importing the namespace

RoomModel MyModel {
import JavaPrimitiveTypes.* from "JavaPrimitiveTypes.room"
ActorClass Act {
  Structure {
    Attribute number: int8
  }
}}

Comment 4 Thomas Schuetz

2011-12-16 03:35:29 EST

That is exactly how I would use the type definitions.
Every Project can define the types in a separate model.

Comment 5 Henrik Rentz-Reichert

2012-02-27 13:24:26 EST

Done with
12d085d0c849291049c7fe1bf82508570518d592

Comment 6 Henrik Rentz-Reichert

2012-03-28 05:12:53 EDT

closing bugs that went into 0.2.0M1