Patent US5029170A successfully refreshed from Google Patents.
US5029170A
Expired / Lapsed
US
⏱️ 0.0 years remaining
Assembly language programming potential error detection scheme which recognizes incorrect symbolic or literal address constructs
Assignee: Bull HN Information Systems Inc
•
Filing: 1989-11-30
•
Granted: 1991-07-02
•
Expires: 2009-11-30
Abstract
Abstract A computer aided software engineering tool is disclosed which is particularly well adapted to identify potential Assembly language source code errors resulting from incorrectly used symbolic and literal address constructs. This objective is achieved by providing a debugging program which has a complete awareness of the specific machine interfaces, conventions and symbol sets. By essentially stepping through the Assembly language statements (without regard to neighboring statements), the debugging program is able, through such examination, to identify, in the Assembly language program under study, specific instances of the use of statements containing possibly incorrect symbolic or literal address constructs and to run closely related additional tests. The programmer may then examine the denoted Assembly language code to determine if a genuine error exists.
Inventors
- 👤 Robert G. Hansen
Bibliographic Details
Application Number
—
Jurisdiction
US
Data Source
google_patents
Last Synchronized
2026-11-04 22:49
CPC Classifications
G; G06; G06F; G06F8/00; G06F8/40; G06F8/41; G06F11/00; G06F11/36; G06F11/3604; G06F11/3698
Claims Analysis
Total Claims: 9
Claim 1
Independent Claim
304 words
A computer aided software engineering process adapted to identify potential source code errors by the analysis of Assembly language statements, the process including the steps of: A) establishing, in the computer system with which the program in development is being debugged, a software representation of the architecture of the computer system upon which the program in development will be eventually used; B) loading the first statement of the program in development for analysis; C) examining the statement to determine if the address field of the corresponding instruction contains a symbolic address construct; D) if the result of step C is: 1) that the instruction does contain a symbolic address construct, going to step E; 2) that the instruction does not contain a symbolic address construct, going to step I; E) determining if the symbol is a member of a family of symbols which require a special type of address modification; F) if the result of step E is: 1) that the symbol is a member of a family of symbols which require a special type of address modification, going to step G; 2) that the symbol is not a member of a family of symbols which require a special type of address modification, going to step J; G) determining whether proper modifiers have been used to reference the symbol; H) if the result of step G is: 1) that proper modifiers have been used to reference the symbol, going to step J; 2) that improper modifiers have been used to reference the symbol, issuing a warning message and then going to step K; I) conducting any literal address field tests provided for analyzing the loaded statement; J) conducting any supplementary tests provided for analyzing the loaded statement; K) loading the next statement of the program in development for analysis, and proceeding to step C.
Claim 2
Dependent Claim
304 words
A computer aided software engineering process adapted to identify potential source code errors by the analysis of Assembly language statements, the process including the steps of: A) establishing, in the computer system with which the program in development is being debugged, a software representation of the architecture of the computer system upon which the program in development will be eventually used; B) loading the first statement of the program in development for analysis; C) examining the statement to determine if the address field of the corresponding instruction contains a symbolic address construct; D) if the result of step C is: 1) that the instruction does contain a symbolic address construct, going to step E; 2) that the instruction does not contain a symbolic address construct, going to step I; E) determining if the symbol is a member of a family of symbols which require a special type of address modification; F) if the result of step E is: 1) that the symbol is a member of a family of symbols which require a special type of address modification, going to step G; 2) that the symbol is not a member of a family of symbols which require a special type of address modification, going to step J; G) determining whether proper modifiers have been used to reference the symbol; H) if the result of step G is: 1) that proper modifiers have been used to reference the symbol, going to step J; 2) that improper modifiers have been used to reference the symbol, issuing a warning message and then going to step K; I) conducting any literal address field tests provided for analyzing the loaded statement; J) conducting any supplementary tests provided for analyzing the loaded statement; K) loading the next statement of the program in development for analysis, and proceeding to step C.
Claim 3
Dependent Claim
270 words
The computer aided software engineering process of claim 1 which includes, in step I, the substeps of: Ia) determining if the address field is a literal; Ib) if the results of step Ia is: Ib1) that the address field is a literal, going to step Ic; Ib2) that the address field is not a literal, going to step J; Ic) determining if the literal address field is a decimal; Id) if the results of step Ic is: Id1) that the literal address field is a decimal, going to step Ig; Id2) that the literal address field is not a decimal, going to step Ie; Ie) determining if the literal is larger than can be accommodated in a machine word address field; If) if the results of step Ie is: If1) that the literal is larger than can be accommodated in a machine word address field, issuing a warning message and then going to step K; If2) that the literal is not larger than can be accommodated in a machine word address field, going to step K; Ig) determining if the called for operation is Boolean; Ih) if the results of step Ig is: Ih1) that the called for operation is Boolean, issuing a warning message and then going to step K; Ih2) that the called for operation is not Boolean, going to step Ij; Ij) determining if the literal contains contiguous sevens; Ik) if the results of step Ij is: Ik1) that the literal contains contiguous sevens, issuing a warning message and then going to step K; Ik2) that the literal does not contain contiguous sevens, going to step Ie.
Claim 4
Dependent Claim
88 words
The computer aided software engineering process of claim 2 which further includes, in step J, the substeps of: J1a) determining if the address field does not exceed a predetermined maximum value; J1b) if the result of stem J1a is: J1b1) that the address field exceeds a predetermined maximum value, issuing a warning message and then going to step K; J1b2) that the address field does not exceed a predetermined maximum value, continuing with any remaining literal address field tests provided in step J for analyzing the loaded statement.
Claim 5
Dependent Claim
136 words
The computer aided software engineering process of claim 2 which further includes, in step J, the substeps of: J2a) determining if the specified operation is a call to another module; J2b) if the result of step J1a is: J2b1) that the specified operation is a call to another module, going to step J2c; J2b2) that the specified operation is not a call to another module, continuing with any remaining literal address field tests provided in step J for analyzing the loaded statement; J2c) determine the validity of the call; J2d) if the result of step J2c is: J2c1) that the call is valid, continuing with any remaining literal address field tests provided in step J for analyzing the loaded statement; J2c2, that the call is invalid, issuing a warning message and then going to step K.
Claim 6
Dependent Claim
139 words
The computer aided software engineering process of claim 2 which further includes, in step J, the substeps of: J3a) determining if the statement invokes a privileged instruction; J3b) if the result of step J3a is: J3b1) that the statement does not invoke a privileged instruction, continuing with any remaining literal address field tests provided in step J for analyzing the loaded statement; J3b2) that the statement dose invoke a privileged instruction, going to step J3c; J3c) determining if intended execution environment permits use of the privileged instruction; J3c1) if the intended execution environment does not permit use of the privileged instruction, issuing a warning message and going to step K; J3c2) if the intended execution environment permits use of the privileged instruction, continuing with any remaining literal address field tests provided in step J for analyzing the loaded statement.
Claim 7
Dependent Claim
88 words
The computer aided software engineering process of claim 1 which further includes, a step J, the substeps of: J1a) determining if the address field does not exceed a predetermined maximum value; J1b) if the result of stem J1a is: (J1b1) that the address field exceeds a predetermined maximum value, issuing a warning message and then going to step K; J1b2) that the address field does not exceed a predetermined maximum value, continuing with any remaining literal address field tests provided in step J for analyzing the loaded statement.
Claim 8
Dependent Claim
136 words
The computer aided software engineering process of claim 1 which further includes, in step J, the substeps of: J2a) determining if the specified operation is a call to another module; J2b) if the result of step J1a is: J2b1) that the specified operation is a call to another module, going to step J2c; J2b2) that the specified operation is not a call to another module, continuing with any remaining literal address field tests provided in step J for analyzing the loaded statement; J2c) determining the validity of the call; J2d) if the result of step J2c is: J2c1) that the call is valid, continuing with any remaining literal address field tests provided in step J for analyzing the loaded statement; J2c2) that the call is invalid, issuing a warning message and then going to step K.
Claim 9
Dependent Claim
139 words
The computer aided software engineering process of claim 1 which further includes, in step J, the substeps of: J3a) determining if the statement invokes a privileged instruction; J3b) if the result of step J3a is: J3b1) that the statement does not invoke a privileged instruction, continuing with any remaining literal address field tests provided in step J) for analyzing the loaded statement; J3b2) that the statement dose invoke a privileged instruction, going to step J3c; J3c) determining if intended execution environment permits use of the privileged instruction; J3c1) if the intended execution environment does not permit use of the privileged instruction, issuing a warning message and going to step K; j3c2) if the intended execution environment permits use of the privileged instruction, continuing with any remaining literal address field tests provided in step J for analyzing the loaded statement.
References Cited (Backward Citations)
USPTO Annuity & Maintenance Windows
| Annuity Stage | Window Opens | Payment Deadline | Surcharge Period Until | Estimated Fee | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3.5 Years (Year 4) | 1994-07-01 | 1994-12-31 | 1995-07-02 | $2000.00 | Window Closed / Lapsed |
| 7.5 Years (Year 8) | 1998-07-01 | 1998-12-31 | 1999-07-02 | $3760.00 | Window Closed / Lapsed |
| 11.5 Years (Year 12) | 2002-07-01 | 2002-12-31 | 2003-07-02 | $7700.00 | Window Closed / Lapsed |