aboutsummaryrefslogtreecommitdiffstats
path: root/lib/asn1/test/asn1_SUITE_data/ConstraintEquivalence.asn1
AgeCommit message (Collapse)Author
2015-01-12Rewrite constraint handlingBjörn Gustavsson
The internal representation for constraints (and object sets) as produced by the parser was awkward, making further processing convoluted. Here follows some examples of the old representation for INTEGER constraints. The constraint 1..2 is represented as: {'ValueRange',{1,2}} If we extend the constraint like this: 1..2, ..., or like this: 1..2, ..., 3 the representation would be: {{'ValueRange',{1,2}},[]} and {{'ValueRange',{1,2}},{'SingleValue',3}} respectively. Note that the pattern {A,B} will match all these constraints. When combining constraints using set operators: 1..2 | 3..4 ^ 5..6 the representation will no longer be a tuple but a list: [{'ValueRange',{1..2}} union {'ValueRange',{3..4}} intersection {'ValueRange',{5..6}}] The parse has full knowledge of the operator precedence; unfortunately, the following pass (asn1ct_check) must also have the same knowledge in order to correctly evaluate the constraints. If we would change the order of the evaulation with round brackets: (1..2 | 3..4) ^ 5..6 there would be a nested listed in the representation: [[{'ValueRange',{1..2}} union {'ValueRange',{3..4}}] intersection {'ValueRange',{5..6}}] We will change the representation to make it more explicit. At the outer level, a constraint is always represented as {element_set,Root,Extension} Extension will be 'none' if there is no extension, and 'empty' if there is an empty extension. Root may also be 'empty' in an object set if there are no objects in the root. Thus the constraints: 1..2 1..2, ... 1..2, ..., 3 will be represented as: {element_set,{'ValueRange',{1,2}},none} {element_set,{'ValueRange',{1,2}},empty} {element_set,{'ValueRange',{1,2}},{'SingleValue',3}} We will change the set operators too. This constraint: 1..2 | 3..4 ^ 5..6 will be represented as: {element_set, {union, {'ValueRange',{1,2}}, {intersection, {'ValueRange',{3,4}}, {'ValueRange',{5,6}}}, none}} which is trivial to understand and evaluate. Similarly: (1..2 | 3..4) ^ 5..6 will be represented as: {element_set, {intersection, {union,{'ValueRange',{1,2}},{'ValueRange',{3,4}}}, {'ValueRange',{5,6}}}, none}
2013-05-31Normalize SIZE constraints to simplify backendsBjörn Gustavsson
2013-05-31Fix handling of open interval constraints with pre-defined integersBjörn Gustavsson
The compiler would crash when given code such as the following: Type ::= INTEGER (lower<..<upper) lower INTEGER ::= 0 lower INTEGER ::= 42
2012-12-18Add a test case for constraint equivalenceBjörn Gustavsson
The constraint simplification pass need to be seriously rethought and rewritten. As a starting point, add a test case to test that equivalent ways to write a constraint are reduced to the same simplified constraint. Fix a few obvious bugs to make the test cases to pass.