Added initial EXEC preprocessor handling logic in pplex and ppparse. by utam-1 · Pull Request #279 · OCamlPro/gnucobol

utam-1 · 2026-03-16T02:43:42Z

Brief description of PR

The aim of this PR is to add an initial foundation work related to : https://sourceforge.net/p/gnucobol/feature-requests/341/

Changes made

The basic idea behind these changes are to initially detect and raise error for EXEC .... END EXEC block. In order to do so we defined a new state for the compiler <EXEC_STATE>, and necessary grammar rules for parser to handle these blocks, which handle the foreign embedded code.

GitMensch

that's a good start; missing are: cobc/Changelog and an entry in NEWS with something like

for parsing purposes, EXEC blocks are now recognized and handed with the "unsupported" warning level (defaulting to error) with INCLUDE statements handled as copybooks

along with test cases in syn_extensions.at (test an empty block, an empty SQL block and missing name after INCLUDE so we have a clue if error handling works, then another that from GixSQL's test cases which uses EXEC SQL INCLUDE with sqlca and another copybook, allowing the validation that the include did work correctly)

GitMensch

overall a remarkably better commit than the last one; see more notes below

GitMensch · 2026-03-16T21:29:00Z

+])
+
+AT_CHECK([$COMPILE_ONLY prog.cob], [1], [],
+[prog.cob:5: error: syntax error, unexpected END_EXEC, expecting Word or Literal


This shows that the tolen name END_EXEC should get a literal value "END-EXEC"

GitMensch

Hi Uttam,

that PR is nearly ready to go upstream. Please have a look at the following comments, push your changes again (should pass CI) and I'll commit it.

This provides the baseline for the preprocessor config file.

Side note: I've added you to "contrib devs" on SF, so you can commit to the contrib svn repo and have the GnuCOBOL project in the associations under your SF profile.

utam-1 · 2026-05-30T14:00:46Z

Hello Simon,
I identified the issue related to the typo test cases which stalled the compiler, making it stuck in an infinite loop. To fix the same I used cb_source_line++ for \n which tracks the actual line numbers, and also added a check in the global <<EOF>> rule for <EXEC_STATE>.
Apart from this I have also added the test case for the scenario in which emprec.cpy is deleted. Do let me know if I should make some other modifications.

GitMensch

That looks nice!

Just a minor thing: replace leading spaces by tab (I could do that on upstream-merge otherwise).

Some more things I've stumbled over now in the review comments below.

Question: Should we start a target branch here + then create one PR against that according to the GSoC proposal - or have a single new one where we do everything until we consider the external preprocessor handling finished?

GitMensch · 2026-05-30T20:51:34Z

+           INCLUDE SQLCA
+       END-EXEC.
+       EXEC SQL
+           INCLUDE EMPREC


I've missed that before, we also need an example like INCLUDE "EMPREC" -> literal and ideally also INCLUDE SQLCA.cpy -> embedded perioid

GitMensch · 2026-05-30T21:00:49Z

+<EXEC_STATE>{
+    "END-EXEC"([ \t]*\.)?     { BEGIN (INITIAL); return END_EXEC; }
+    "INCLUDE"                 { return INCLUDE; }
+    {WORD}                    { pplval.s = cobc_plex_strdup (yytext); return TOKEN; }


distinguish between a new SUBSYSTEM "subsytem" token and "common" TOKEN, which will improve diagnostics;
that may either be done with a new EXEC_STATE_START or with a static variable

utam-1 · 2026-05-31T14:18:30Z

Just a minor thing: replace leading spaces by tab (I could do that on upstream-merge otherwise).

Yes that would be nice, I tried to replace them with sed but maybe it may not have worked.

Question: Should we start a target branch here + then create one PR against that according to the GSoC proposal - or have a single new one where we do everything until we consider the external preprocessor handling finished?

I think keeping this as the baseline target branch and then creating a PR against that makes sense.

GitMensch · 2026-05-31T20:03:35Z

sounds like a plan; I'd consider that branch fine now, so you may start with the next steps per your original GSoC plan (I only leave a minor change request, but that's really minor)

GitMensch · 2026-05-31T20:04:23Z

+        if (!exec_subsystem_seen) {
+            exec_subsystem_seen = 1;
+            return SUBSYSTEM;
+        }


just always go with TOKEN here, that's no valid SUBSYSTEM

GitMensch · 2026-05-31T20:05:22Z

+
+
+AT_SETUP([EXEC SQL INCLUDE sqlca and copybook])
+AT_KEYWORDS([exec sql include sqlca extensions])


all words in the test name are automatically added to the keywords and all keywords are case-senstive, so please cleanup the duplicates in all tests' keyywords; thanks

GitMensch · 2026-05-31T20:07:46Z

+	03 ENO    PIC S9(4) COMP.
+	03 LNAME  PIC X(10).


COBOL85 ruleset would not compile that; area A (columns 8-11) should have the level 01+77 + most "boilerplate", column 12+ have higher levels (like these) and all coded statements, see below

GitMensch · 2026-05-31T20:10:41Z

+	DISPLAY SQLCODE.
+	MOVE 1 TO ENO.
+	STOP RUN.


these are statements and start ideally at col12+(area b); also if there are statements then you should have a section or paragraph definition (those go to area a) - the easiest thing is go with MAIN.

Note: this does work "as is" but keeping a portable coding style is a good trait, so I suggest to go over those things for the test.

utam-1 · 2026-06-01T05:19:35Z

sounds like a plan; I'd consider that branch fine now, so you may start with the next steps per your original GSoC plan (I only leave a minor change request, but that's really minor)

Thank you!
A small follow-up question from my side: Should this PR be merged into the main branch, so that the baseline be established at first, then I can rebase and make next set of incremental changes for subsequent stages? ( I think it will make the subsequent PRs easier to review and may potentially help in case if a merge conflict arises )

GitMensch · 2026-06-01T07:21:02Z

PR should be merged upstream, then I'll create a rebased branch that you can work from. I still wait for the FSF attorney to send the signed papers (will ping them mid/end of this week if I don't see any response, I'm actually waiting on multiple ones this time).

... but you can already start with that work, just don't push to this branch (either a separate one based on that or push later).

Added initial EXEC preprocessor handling logic in pplex and ppparse

9a895d7

GitMensch requested changes Mar 16, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread cobc/pplex.l Outdated

Comment thread cobc/pplex.l Outdated

Comment thread cobc/ppparse.y Outdated

Comment thread cobc/ppparse.y Outdated

Comment thread cobc/ppparse.y Outdated

Modified approach based on review comments

119e265

GitMensch requested changes Mar 16, 2026

View reviewed changes

utam-1 added 2 commits March 17, 2026 10:29

Deleted unreleated files, and fixed inconsistencies

e492b07

Refined the test cases based on feedback

31c0601

utam-1 requested a review from GitMensch May 2, 2026 02:54

GitMensch requested changes May 26, 2026

View reviewed changes

Applied the changes based on feedback

a946047

GitMensch requested changes May 27, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread tests/testsuite.src/syn_definition.at

Comment thread tests/testsuite.src/syn_definition.at

Comment thread tests/testsuite.src/syn_definition.at

Modified test cases and added support for EOF

88a2960

GitMensch marked this pull request as ready for review May 30, 2026 21:56

GitMensch requested changes May 30, 2026

View reviewed changes

Added new test cases and subsytem token

b645b64

Restored to previous commit with modified test cases

632cc07

GitMensch approved these changes May 31, 2026

View reviewed changes

Modified subsystem handling for dotted names and improved test cases

5909d70

utam-1 mentioned this pull request Jun 14, 2026

Integration of EXEC preprocessor beyond baseline. #294

Draft



		AT_SETUP([EXEC SQL INCLUDE sqlca and copybook])
		AT_KEYWORDS([exec sql include sqlca extensions])

Conversation

utam-1 commented Mar 16, 2026

Brief description of PR

Changes made

Uh oh!

GitMensch left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

GitMensch left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

GitMensch Mar 16, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

GitMensch left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

utam-1 commented May 30, 2026

Uh oh!

GitMensch left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

GitMensch May 30, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

GitMensch May 30, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

utam-1 commented May 31, 2026

Uh oh!

GitMensch commented May 31, 2026

Uh oh!

GitMensch May 31, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

GitMensch May 31, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

GitMensch May 31, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

GitMensch May 31, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

utam-1 commented Jun 1, 2026

Uh oh!

GitMensch commented Jun 1, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

2 participants