[chirp_devel] Issues in bitwise.py

[Dan Smith]

> I do not own such a radio but the same issue could be present in other drivers.
> I think that the reason is that n_a is used twice

Yep, I think you're right. I've hit this problem before myself while writing a driver, but it usually bites me in a way that causes me to adjust the driver and I always think "I better make bitwise check that" but I never do.

So I wrote up this quickly:

https://github.com/kk7ds/chirp/pull/907

I was going to make it reject them, which is the right behavior, but a lot of drivers are committing this sin, and some drivers in many many places. So, I made it an ERROR log and auto rename so we can proceed. I also added a test and marked it as XFAIL so we can see which drivers are broken. Here's the list currently:

> [gw3] [  2%] XFAIL tests/test_drivers.py::TestBitwiseStrict_Retevis_RB17P::test_bitwise_errors
> [gw7] [  5%] XFAIL tests/test_drivers.py::TestBitwiseStrict_Wouxun_KG-UVD1P::test_bitwise_errors
> [gw9] [  7%] XFAIL tests/test_drivers.py::TestBitwiseStrict_Leixen_VV-898S::test_bitwise_errors
> [gw8] [ 12%] XFAIL tests/test_drivers.py::TestBitwiseStrict_Baofeng_UV-5R::test_bitwise_errors
> [gw7] [ 12%] XFAIL tests/test_drivers.py::TestBitwiseStrict_Radtel_RT-470L::test_bitwise_errors
> [gw7] [ 15%] XFAIL tests/test_drivers.py::TestBitwiseStrict_Baofeng_UV-9G::test_bitwise_errors
> [gw5] [ 15%] XFAIL tests/test_drivers.py::TestBitwiseStrict_Radtel_RT-470X::test_bitwise_errors
> [gw9] [ 18%] XFAIL tests/test_drivers.py::TestBitwiseStrict_Leixen_VV-898::test_bitwise_errors
> [gw8] [ 20%] XFAIL tests/test_drivers.py::TestBitwiseStrict_Baofeng_F-11::test_bitwise_errors
> [gw1] [ 27%] XFAIL tests/test_drivers.py::TestBitwiseStrict_Yaesu_FT-2900R_1900R::test_bitwise_errors
> [gw0] [ 28%] XFAIL tests/test_drivers.py::TestBitwiseStrict_Jetstream_JT270MH_A_Band::test_bitwise_errors
> [gw9] [ 29%] XFAIL tests/test_drivers.py::TestBitwiseStrict_Wouxun_KG-UV6::test_bitwise_errors
> [gw6] [ 32%] XFAIL tests/test_drivers.py::TestBitwiseStrict_Radioddity_UV-5G::test_bitwise_errors
> [gw5] [ 33%] XFAIL tests/test_drivers.py::TestBitwiseStrict_Yaesu_FT-70D::test_bitwise_errors
> [gw0] [ 36%] XFAIL tests/test_drivers.py::TestBitwiseStrict_Jetstream_JT270MH_B_Band::test_bitwise_errors
> [gw6] [ 43%] XFAIL tests/test_drivers.py::TestBitwiseStrict_Explorer_QRZ-1::test_bitwise_errors
> [gw6] [ 49%] XFAIL tests/test_drivers.py::TestBitwiseStrict_BTECH_MURS-V2::test_bitwise_errors
> [gw5] [ 50%] XFAIL tests/test_drivers.py::TestBitwiseStrict_Radtel_RT-470::test_bitwise_errors
> [gw9] [ 52%] XFAIL tests/test_drivers.py::TestBitwiseStrict_Yaesu_FT-7100M_VHF_Band::test_bitwise_errors
> [gw8] [ 55%] XFAIL tests/test_drivers.py::TestBitwiseStrict_Vertex_Standard_FTL-2011::test_bitwise_errors
> [gw6] [ 58%] XFAIL tests/test_drivers.py::TestBitwiseStrict_BTECH_GMRS-V2::test_bitwise_errors
> [gw3] [ 59%] XFAIL tests/test_drivers.py::TestBitwiseStrict_Yaesu_FT-450::test_bitwise_errors
> [gw4] [ 60%] XFAIL tests/test_drivers.py::TestBitwiseStrict_Yaesu_FT-450D::test_bitwise_errors
> [gw5] [ 62%] XFAIL tests/test_drivers.py::TestBitwiseStrict_Retevis_RA89::test_bitwise_errors
> [gw9] [ 67%] XFAIL tests/test_drivers.py::TestBitwiseStrict_Yaesu_FT-7100M_UHF_Band::test_bitwise_errors
> [gw6] [ 70%] XFAIL tests/test_drivers.py::TestBitwiseStrict_Abbree_AR-730::test_bitwise_errors
> [gw3] [ 71%] XFAIL tests/test_drivers.py::TestBitwiseStrict_Baofeng_UV-6R::test_bitwise_errors
> [gw3] [ 76%] XFAIL tests/test_drivers.py::TestBitwiseStrict_Hiroyasu_HI-8811::test_bitwise_errors
> [gw9] [ 82%] XFAIL tests/test_drivers.py::TestBitwiseStrict_Baofeng_UV-S9X3::test_bitwise_errors
> [gw6] [ 82%] XFAIL tests/test_drivers.py::TestBitwiseStrict_TYT_TH-UV88::test_bitwise_errors
> [gw5] [ 84%] XFAIL tests/test_drivers.py::TestBitwiseStrict_TYT_TH-UV8000::test_bitwise_errors
> [gw3] [ 85%] XFAIL tests/test_drivers.py::TestBitwiseStrict_Jetstream_JT270M::test_bitwise_errors
> [gw7] [ 88%] XFAIL tests/test_drivers.py::TestBitwiseStrict_Puxing_PX-888K::test_bitwise_errors
> [gw2] [ 89%] XFAIL tests/test_drivers.py::TestBitwiseStrict_Baofeng_BF-A58S::test_bitwise_errors
> [gw7] [ 90%] XFAIL tests/test_drivers.py::TestBitwiseStrict_Baofeng_5RX::test_bitwise_errors
> [gw1] [ 91%] XFAIL tests/test_drivers.py::TestBitwiseStrict_Anysecu_UV-A37::test_bitwise_errors
> [gw4] [ 92%] XFAIL tests/test_drivers.py::TestBitwiseStrict_Talkpod_A36plus::test_bitwise_errors
> [gw3] [ 93%] XFAIL tests/test_drivers.py::TestBitwiseStrict_KYD_IP-620::test_bitwise_errors
> [gw8] [ 93%] XFAIL tests/test_drivers.py::TestBitwiseStrict_Icom_IC-V80::test_bitwise_errors
> [gw9] [100%] XFAIL tests/test_drivers.py::TestBitwiseStrict_AnyTone_5888UVIII::test_bitwise_errors


So please, everyone, if you care about a driver on that list, help by fixing the name clashes. Just loading an image should give you some logs. The leixen driver (which accounts for multiple entries above) is a particularly bad offender. Here's what it looks like when loading with that patch applied:

> ERROR: Duplicate definition for unknown on line 10:      unknown:2,; renaming to unknown_000186
> ERROR: Duplicate definition for unknown on line 12:      unknown:1;; renaming to unknown_000186
> ERROR: Duplicate definition for unknown1 on line 28:      unknown1:1,; renaming to unknown1_000189
> ERROR: Duplicate definition for unknown2 on line 31:      unknown2:2;; renaming to unknown2_000189
> ERROR: Duplicate definition for unknown on line 41:   u8 unknown:3,; renaming to unknown_000190
> ERROR: Duplicate definition for unknown on line 52:      unknown:2,; renaming to unknown_000195
> ERROR: Duplicate definition for unknown on line 54:   u8 unknown:4,; renaming to unknown_000196
> ERROR: Duplicate definition for unknown1 on line 58:   u8 unknown1:3,; renaming to unknown1_000197
> ERROR: Duplicate definition for unknown2 on line 60:      unknown2:1,; renaming to unknown2_000197
> ERROR: Duplicate definition for unknown1 on line 64:   u8 unknown1:3,; renaming to unknown1_000199
> ERROR: Duplicate definition for unknown1 on line 66:   u8 unknown1:3,; renaming to unknown1_00019a
> ERROR: Duplicate definition for unknown1 on line 68:   u8 unknown1:2,; renaming to unknown1_00019b
> ERROR: Duplicate definition for unknown1 on line 70:   u8 unknown1:1,; renaming to unknown1_00019c
> ERROR: Duplicate definition for unknown1 on line 72:   u8 unknown1:2,; renaming to unknown1_00019d
> ERROR: Duplicate definition for unknown1 on line 74:   u8 unknown1:3,; renaming to unknown1_00019e
> ERROR: Duplicate definition for unknown on line 76:      unknown:4;; renaming to unknown_00019e


The fix is just to rename the dupes to something else. Hopefully the actual number of drivers is smaller than the lines above (like leixen) and fixing a few files will make a big dent. Note the line number above is the line number from the start of the memory format text, not the line in the python file.

I'll plan to merge that PR before the next build.

> defn ="""
> struct {
> u8 n_a:2;
> u8 n_a:1;
> } memory[1];
> """
> 
> but this throws a RecursionError exception at .../chirp/bitwise.py",
> line 878, in do_bitfield
>    LOG.warn("WARNING: %i trailing bits unaccounted for in %s" %

This is complaining because you defined a u8 and only defined two bits of it in the first case. The second one only has one bit. The fix is to avoid the name clash between the two "n_a" variables. I'm guessing neither are used, and thus just renaming them to something else will work.

The recursion error is because pyPEG has some bugs in serializing its output.

> * the __repr__ of class structDataElement and possibly 4 other lines
> of code shouldn't use the integer division self.size() // 8 or the
> size should be automatically padded to the next multiple of 8 with a
> dummy member?

Nothing but a bitfield element can be aligned to less than 8 bits, so I think it's okay as it is (modulo the bug).

> * should there be a warning for reused names of struct members or an exception?

Absolutely. Log now, exception eventually.

Thanks Daniele!

--Dan