Re: [PATCH v5 4/4] tools/nolibc: add tests for the integer limits in stdint.h

Vincent Dagonneau
2023-02-23T00:38:40Z

On Tue, Feb 21, 2023, at 12:44, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> 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.
>

Ok, just did something similar in the newest version. It does make it more readable.

> Willy