Add >>IMP INCLUDE directive

[engboris]

Closes #114 and completes FR176 on SourceForge.

A new directive >> IMP INCLUDE FILE_1 ... FILE_n is introduced, allowing to include multiple C headers. Only files with name finishing by .h are allowed.

I'm not sure about that but I marked the feature with /* GnuCOBOL 3.3 extension*/.

[GitMensch]

Thanks for this first take - please copy the tests for --include and adjust those for the directive. In gnbucobol.texi and NEWS add a remark in the --include description, that the directive can be used as an alternative.

[GitMensch]

We don't need two lists, but we need to reset the list for each source file specified on the command line to the state from cobc command line. Therefore either backup the whole list and restore it (similar to cb_source_format) or just use two lists and reset the second before each new source file. I'm ok with both ways but think the two-list approach is easier to handle.

[GitMensch]

still some requested changes - but we're on the finish line with this PR

[GitMensch]

"approved with minor changes"

[GitMensch]

changes to the testcases needed, overal fine

[codecov-commenter]

⚠️ Please install the to ensure uploads and comments are reliably processed by Codecov.

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 73.07692% with 14 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 67.80%. Comparing base (2c000f5) to head (1336ded).
Report is 15 commits behind head on gcos4gnucobol-3.x.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
cobc/scanner.l	74.19%	3 Missing and 5 partials ⚠️
cobc/codegen.c	50.00%	1 Missing and 2 partials ⚠️
cobc/pplex.l	57.14%	0 Missing and 3 partials ⚠️

❗ Your organization needs to install the Codecov GitHub app to enable full functionality.

Additional details and impacted files

@@                  Coverage Diff                  @@
##           gcos4gnucobol-3.x     #143      +/-   ##
=====================================================
- Coverage              77.56%   67.80%   -9.76%     
=====================================================
  Files                     33       33              
  Lines                  60230    60413     +183     
  Branches               15834    15888      +54     
=====================================================
- Hits                   46717    40966    -5751     
- Misses                 13513    13538      +25     
- Partials                   0     5909    +5909     

Flag	Coverage Δ
	?

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[engboris]

@GitMensch friendly ping

[GitMensch]

nearly done, I'm positive that we reach the commit-state tomorrow :-)

Thanks for working on this again!

[engboris]

Should be good now. You were right, cobc aborted where compiling several COBOL files within the same command line. I added new checks:

AT_SETUP([IMP INCLUDE directive multiple files])
AT_KEYWORDS([IMP INCLUDE])

AT_DATA([prog.cob], [
       >>IMP INCLUDE "file1.h" file2.h <file3.h> "<file4.h>"
       IDENTIFICATION DIVISION.
       PROGRAM-ID. PROG.
       PROCEDURE DIVISION.
           GOBACK.
])

AT_DATA([prog2.cob], [
       IDENTIFICATION DIVISION.
       PROGRAM-ID. prog.
       PROCEDURE DIVISION.
           GOBACK.
])

AT_CHECK([$COMPILE --save-temps -E -o prog.i prog.cob], [0], [], [])
AT_CHECK([$COMPILE -C prog.cob prog2.cob], [0], [], [])
AT_CHECK([$GREP "#INCLUDE file1.h"   prog.i], [0], ignore, [])
AT_CHECK([$GREP "#INCLUDE file2.h"   prog.i], [0], ignore, [])
AT_CHECK([$GREP "#INCLUDE <file3.h>" prog.i], [0], ignore, [])
AT_CHECK([$GREP "#INCLUDE <file4.h>" prog.i], [0], ignore, [])
AT_CHECK([$GREP "#INCLUDE file1.h"   prog.c], [1], ignore, [])
AT_CHECK([$GREP "#INCLUDE file2.h"   prog.c], [1], ignore, [])
AT_CHECK([$GREP "#INCLUDE <file3.h>" prog.c], [1], ignore, [])
AT_CHECK([$GREP "#INCLUDE <file4.h>" prog.c], [1], ignore, [])

[GitMensch]

LGTM, good that we ensured to not break something (I've found a lot ways to do so, which is often the reason I consider those checks .... nowadays - it is possible but hard to just deduce that when adding new code in that area for the first time).

Thanks again!

[engboris]

I did some mistakes while rebasing and fixing conflicts. I'm trying to fix it now.

[engboris]

@GitMensch Could you do a last quick check? I rebased and fixed conflicts but I may have introduced unwanted code although it is unlikely (all the tests are successful). I'm sorry for the inconvenience!

[GitMensch]

That's fine. [I've just checked the last "Compare", then the additional fix]

[ddeclerck]

What is the status of this PR ? Is it ready to be merged ?

[engboris]

What is the status of this PR ? Is it ready to be merged ?

Yes, it should be ready (already marked with "Ready for SVN")

[ddeclerck]

What is the status of this PR ? Is it ready to be merged ?

Yes, it should be ready (already marked with "Ready for SVN")

Ah, yeah, I overlooked the "Ready for SVN" tag.
So I guess I can merge this to SVN right away, right @GitMensch ?

[GitMensch]

yes, just waits for the commit since two months

[ddeclerck]

Merged in SVN @ 5448.