From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
To: "Thomas Weißschuh" <thomas@t-8ch.de>
Cc: Vincent Dagonneau <v@vda.io>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 4/4] tools/nolibc: add tests for the integer limits in stdint.h
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2023 18:44:44 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Y/UDDIijmryKRIkq@1wt.eu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3db10837-b632-4df6-9d5f-199fca0eca87@t-8ch.de>
On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 05:34:01PM +0000, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/nolibc-test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/nolibc-test.c
> > index 882140508d56..ceaf60075331 100644
> > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/nolibc-test.c
> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/nolibc-test.c
> > @@ -561,7 +561,67 @@ int run_syscall(int min, int max)
> > CASE_TEST(waitpid_child); EXPECT_SYSER(1, waitpid(getpid(), &tmp, WNOHANG), -1, ECHILD); break;
> > CASE_TEST(write_badf); EXPECT_SYSER(1, write(-1, &tmp, 1), -1, EBADF); break;
> > CASE_TEST(write_zero); EXPECT_SYSZR(1, write(1, &tmp, 0)); break;
> > - case __LINE__:
> > + CASE_TEST(limit_int8_max); EXPECT_EQ(1, INT8_MAX, (int8_t) 0x7f); break;
> > + CASE_TEST(limit_int8_min); EXPECT_EQ(1, INT8_MIN, (int8_t) 0x80); break;
> > + CASE_TEST(limit_uint8_max); EXPECT_EQ(1, UINT8_MAX, (uint8_t) 0xff); break;
> > + CASE_TEST(limit_int16_max); EXPECT_EQ(1, INT16_MAX, (int16_t) 0x7fff); break;
> > + CASE_TEST(limit_int16_min); EXPECT_EQ(1, INT16_MIN, (int16_t) 0x8000); break;
> > + CASE_TEST(limit_uint16_max); EXPECT_EQ(1, UINT16_MAX, (uint16_t) 0xffff); break;
> > + CASE_TEST(limit_int32_max); EXPECT_EQ(1, INT32_MAX, (int32_t) 0x7fffffff); break;
> > + CASE_TEST(limit_int32_min); EXPECT_EQ(1, INT32_MIN, (int32_t) 0x80000000); break;
> > + CASE_TEST(limit_uint32_max); EXPECT_EQ(1, UINT32_MAX, (uint32_t) 0xffffffff); break;
> > + CASE_TEST(limit_int64_max); EXPECT_EQ(1, INT64_MAX, (int64_t) 0x7fffffffffffffff); break;
> > + CASE_TEST(limit_int64_min); EXPECT_EQ(1, INT64_MIN, (int64_t) 0x8000000000000000); break;
> > + CASE_TEST(limit_uint64_max); EXPECT_EQ(1, UINT64_MAX, (uint64_t) 0xffffffffffffffff); break;
> > + CASE_TEST(limit_int_least8_max); EXPECT_EQ(1, INT_LEAST8_MAX, (int_least8_t) 0x7f); break;
> > + CASE_TEST(limit_int_least8_min); EXPECT_EQ(1, INT_LEAST8_MIN, (int_least8_t) 0x80); break;
> > + CASE_TEST(limit_uint_least8_max); EXPECT_EQ(1, UINT_LEAST8_MAX, (uint_least8_t) 0xff); break;
> > + CASE_TEST(limit_int_least16_max); EXPECT_EQ(1, INT_LEAST16_MAX, (int_least16_t) 0x7fff); break;
> > + CASE_TEST(limit_int_least16_min); EXPECT_EQ(1, INT_LEAST16_MIN, (int_least16_t) 0x8000); break;
> > + CASE_TEST(limit_uint_least16_max); EXPECT_EQ(1, UINT_LEAST16_MAX, (uint_least16_t) 0xffff); break;
> > + CASE_TEST(limit_int_least32_max); EXPECT_EQ(1, INT_LEAST32_MAX, (int_least32_t) 0x7fffffff); break;
> > + CASE_TEST(limit_int_least32_min); EXPECT_EQ(1, INT_LEAST32_MIN, (int_least32_t) 0x80000000); break;
> > + CASE_TEST(limit_uint_least32_max); EXPECT_EQ(1, UINT_LEAST32_MAX, (uint_least32_t) 0xffffffffU); break;
> > + CASE_TEST(limit_int_fast8_max); EXPECT_EQ(1, INT_FAST8_MAX, (int_fast8_t) 0x7f); break;
> > + CASE_TEST(limit_int_fast8_min); EXPECT_EQ(1, INT_FAST8_MIN, (int_fast8_t) 0x80); break;
> > + CASE_TEST(limit_uint_fast8_max); EXPECT_EQ(1, UINT_FAST8_MAX, (uint_fast8_t) 0xff); break;
> > +#if __SIZEOF_LONG__ == 8
> > + CASE_TEST(limit_int_least64_min); EXPECT_EQ(1, INT_LEAST64_MIN, (int_least64_t) 0x8000000000000000LL); break;
> > + CASE_TEST(limit_int_least64_max); EXPECT_EQ(1, INT_LEAST64_MAX, (int_least64_t) 0x7fffffffffffffffLL); break;
> > + CASE_TEST(limit_uint_least64_max); EXPECT_EQ(1, UINT_LEAST64_MAX, (uint_least64_t) 0xffffffffffffffffULL); break;
>
> The _least64 tests should also apply to 32bit, no?
> And moved before the _fast8 tests.
Just thinking loud, it seems to me that all of these _least/_fast ones
can in fact be reliably checked against INT_*, LONG_* and SIZE_MAX. Given
that these ones are already tested, maybe we can just get rid of the ifdef
around all the least/fast and map them to the ones we already test ? That
would possibly remove duplication and make it more readable.
Willy
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-02-21 17:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-02-20 20:20 [PATCH v4 0/4] tools/nolibc: Adding stdint.h, more integer types and tests Vincent Dagonneau
2023-02-20 20:20 ` [PATCH v5 1/4] tools/nolibc: add stdint.h Vincent Dagonneau
2023-02-20 20:20 ` [PATCH v5 2/4] tools/nolibc: add integer types and integer limit macros Vincent Dagonneau
2023-02-21 17:40 ` Thomas Weißschuh
2023-02-23 0:35 ` Vincent Dagonneau
2023-02-20 20:20 ` [PATCH v5 3/4] tools/nolibc: enlarge column width of tests Vincent Dagonneau
2023-02-20 20:20 ` [PATCH v5 4/4] tools/nolibc: add tests for the integer limits in stdint.h Vincent Dagonneau
2023-02-21 17:34 ` Thomas Weißschuh
2023-02-21 17:44 ` Willy Tarreau [this message]
2023-02-23 0:38 ` Vincent Dagonneau
2023-02-23 0:58 ` Vincent Dagonneau
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=Y/UDDIijmryKRIkq@1wt.eu \
--to=w@1wt.eu \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=thomas@t-8ch.de \
--cc=v@vda.io \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.