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

["Vincent Dagonneau" <v@vda.io>]

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