[RFC,4/4] tools/nolibc: add tests for the integer limits in stdint.h

  From: Vincent Dagonneau <v@vda.io>

This commit adds tests for the limits added in a previous commit. The
limits are defined in decimal in stdint.h and as hexadecimal in the
tests (e.g. 0x7f = 127 or 0x80 = -128). Hopefully it catches some o the
most egregious mistakes.

Signed-off-by: Vincent Dagonneau <v@vda.io>
[wt: rely on the compiler-provided __SIZEOF_LONG__ to decide what values
 to expect, and detect its miss to avoid reporting false errors]
Signed-off-by: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
---
 tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/nolibc-test.c | 45 +++++++++++++++++++-
 1 file changed, 44 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
  

On Sun, Feb 19, 2023 at 07:51:33PM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> From: Vincent Dagonneau <v@vda.io>
> 
> This commit adds tests for the limits added in a previous commit. The
> limits are defined in decimal in stdint.h and as hexadecimal in the
> tests (e.g. 0x7f = 127 or 0x80 = -128). Hopefully it catches some o the
> most egregious mistakes.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Vincent Dagonneau <v@vda.io>
> [wt: rely on the compiler-provided __SIZEOF_LONG__ to decide what values
>  to expect, and detect its miss to avoid reporting false errors]
> Signed-off-by: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
> ---
>  tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/nolibc-test.c | 45 +++++++++++++++++++-
>  1 file changed, 44 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/nolibc-test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/nolibc-test.c
> index 882140508d56..290249d6da30 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/nolibc-test.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/nolibc-test.c
> @@ -561,7 +561,50 @@ 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;
> +#if __SIZEOF_LONG__ == 8
> +		CASE_TEST(limit_int_least64_max);   EXPECT_EQ(1, INT_LEAST64_MAX,  (int_least64_t)   0x7fffffffffffffffLL); break;
> +		CASE_TEST(limit_int_least64_min);   EXPECT_EQ(1, INT_LEAST64_MIN,  (int_least64_t)   0x8000000000000000LL); break;
> +		CASE_TEST(limit_uint_least64_max);  EXPECT_EQ(1, UINT_LEAST64_MAX, (uint_least64_t)  0xffffffffffffffffULL); break;

int64 types are also defined for 32bit platforms, but the tests are only
ran for 64bits. Is this intentional?

> +		CASE_TEST(limit_intptr_min);        EXPECT_EQ(1, INTPTR_MIN,  (intptr_t)  0x8000000000000000LL); break;
> +		CASE_TEST(limit_intptr_max);        EXPECT_EQ(1, INTPTR_MAX,  (intptr_t)  0x7fffffffffffffffLL); break;
> +		CASE_TEST(limit_uintptr_max);       EXPECT_EQ(1, UINTPTR_MAX, (uintptr_t) 0xffffffffffffffffULL); break;
> +		CASE_TEST(limit_ptrdiff_min);       EXPECT_EQ(1, PTRDIFF_MIN, (ptrdiff_t) 0x8000000000000000LL); break;
> +		CASE_TEST(limit_ptrdiff_max);       EXPECT_EQ(1, PTRDIFF_MAX, (ptrdiff_t) 0x7fffffffffffffffLL); break;
> +		CASE_TEST(limit_size_max);          EXPECT_EQ(1, SIZE_MAX,    (size_t)    0xffffffffffffffffULL); break;
> +#elif __SIZEOF_LONG__ == 4
> +		CASE_TEST(limit_intptr_min);        EXPECT_EQ(1, INTPTR_MIN,  (intptr_t)  0x80000000); break;
> +		CASE_TEST(limit_intptr_max);        EXPECT_EQ(1, INTPTR_MAX,  (intptr_t)  0x7fffffff); break;
> +		CASE_TEST(limit_uintptr_max);       EXPECT_EQ(1, UINTPTR_MAX, (uintptr_t) 0xffffffffU); break;
> +		CASE_TEST(limit_ptrdiff_min);       EXPECT_EQ(1, PTRDIFF_MIN, (ptrdiff_t) 0x80000000); break;
> +		CASE_TEST(limit_ptrdiff_max);       EXPECT_EQ(1, PTRDIFF_MAX, (ptrdiff_t) 0x7fffffff); break;
> +		CASE_TEST(limit_ptrdiff_min);       EXPECT_EQ(1, PTRDIFF_MIN, (ptrdiff_t) 0x80000000); break;
> +		CASE_TEST(limit_ptrdiff_max);       EXPECT_EQ(1, PTRDIFF_MAX, (ptrdiff_t) 0x7fffffff); break;

ptrdiff tests are duplicate.

> +		CASE_TEST(limit_size_max);          EXPECT_EQ(1, SIZE_MAX,    (size_t)    0xffffffffU); break;
> +#else
> +# warning "__SIZEOF_LONG__ is undefined"

Why not #error?

> +#endif /* __WORDSIZE == 64 */

#endif comment is now incorrect

> +			case __LINE__:

The "case" should be further left, no?

>  			return ret; /* must be last */
>  		/* note: do not set any defaults so as to permit holes above */
>  		}
> -- 
> 2.35.3
>
  

Hi Thomas,

On Sun, Feb 19, 2023 at 07:04:04PM +0000, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
> > +#elif __SIZEOF_LONG__ == 4
> > +		CASE_TEST(limit_intptr_min);        EXPECT_EQ(1, INTPTR_MIN,  (intptr_t)  0x80000000); break;
> > +		CASE_TEST(limit_intptr_max);        EXPECT_EQ(1, INTPTR_MAX,  (intptr_t)  0x7fffffff); break;
> > +		CASE_TEST(limit_uintptr_max);       EXPECT_EQ(1, UINTPTR_MAX, (uintptr_t) 0xffffffffU); break;
> > +		CASE_TEST(limit_ptrdiff_min);       EXPECT_EQ(1, PTRDIFF_MIN, (ptrdiff_t) 0x80000000); break;
> > +		CASE_TEST(limit_ptrdiff_max);       EXPECT_EQ(1, PTRDIFF_MAX, (ptrdiff_t) 0x7fffffff); break;
> > +		CASE_TEST(limit_ptrdiff_min);       EXPECT_EQ(1, PTRDIFF_MIN, (ptrdiff_t) 0x80000000); break;
> > +		CASE_TEST(limit_ptrdiff_max);       EXPECT_EQ(1, PTRDIFF_MAX, (ptrdiff_t) 0x7fffffff); break;
> 
> ptrdiff tests are duplicate.

Argh, I thought I had already removed these duplicates, I noticed them
previously indeed. Vincent, please address this in your next iteration.

> > +		CASE_TEST(limit_size_max);          EXPECT_EQ(1, SIZE_MAX,    (size_t)    0xffffffffU); break;
> > +#else
> > +# warning "__SIZEOF_LONG__ is undefined"
> 
> Why not #error?

It's just a matter of choice. Since the tool's goal is to spot errors,
and if possible several at once, I find it preferable to still not fail
on other tests, as often when you get multiple failures it's easier to
figure what's going on. During the last test session I precisely had a
build error that was quite annoying because once I managed to fix it I
figured the fix was not the right one regarding other places.

Alternately we could probably just add one line that always reports a
failure like the other ones (it would be even better so that we can
compare all outputs and still know that something fails):

 +#else
 +		CASE_TEST(__SIZEOF_LONG__defined);  EXPECT_EQ(1, 1, 0); break;

> > +#endif /* __WORDSIZE == 64 */
> 
> #endif comment is now incorrect

Good catch indeed!
> 
> > +			case __LINE__:
> 
> The "case" should be further left, no?

You're right!

Thank you!
Willy
  

Hi Thomas,

On Sun, Feb 19, 2023, at 14:15, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
>
> On Sun, Feb 19, 2023 at 07:04:04PM +0000, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
>> > +#elif __SIZEOF_LONG__ == 4
>> > +		CASE_TEST(limit_intptr_min);        EXPECT_EQ(1, INTPTR_MIN,  (intptr_t)  0x80000000); break;
>> > +		CASE_TEST(limit_intptr_max);        EXPECT_EQ(1, INTPTR_MAX,  (intptr_t)  0x7fffffff); break;
>> > +		CASE_TEST(limit_uintptr_max);       EXPECT_EQ(1, UINTPTR_MAX, (uintptr_t) 0xffffffffU); break;
>> > +		CASE_TEST(limit_ptrdiff_min);       EXPECT_EQ(1, PTRDIFF_MIN, (ptrdiff_t) 0x80000000); break;
>> > +		CASE_TEST(limit_ptrdiff_max);       EXPECT_EQ(1, PTRDIFF_MAX, (ptrdiff_t) 0x7fffffff); break;
>> > +		CASE_TEST(limit_ptrdiff_min);       EXPECT_EQ(1, PTRDIFF_MIN, (ptrdiff_t) 0x80000000); break;
>> > +		CASE_TEST(limit_ptrdiff_max);       EXPECT_EQ(1, PTRDIFF_MAX, (ptrdiff_t) 0x7fffffff); break;
>> 
>> ptrdiff tests are duplicate.
>
> Argh, I thought I had already removed these duplicates, I noticed them
> previously indeed. Vincent, please address this in your next iteration.
>

Oops, my mistake, sorry about that. I removed it from v5. 

>> > +		CASE_TEST(limit_size_max);          EXPECT_EQ(1, SIZE_MAX,    (size_t)    0xffffffffU); break;
>> > +#else
>> > +# warning "__SIZEOF_LONG__ is undefined"
>> 
>> Why not #error?
>
> It's just a matter of choice. Since the tool's goal is to spot errors,
> and if possible several at once, I find it preferable to still not fail
> on other tests, as often when you get multiple failures it's easier to
> figure what's going on. During the last test session I precisely had a
> build error that was quite annoying because once I managed to fix it I
> figured the fix was not the right one regarding other places.
>
> Alternately we could probably just add one line that always reports a
> failure like the other ones (it would be even better so that we can
> compare all outputs and still know that something fails):
>
>  +#else
>  +		CASE_TEST(__SIZEOF_LONG__defined);  EXPECT_EQ(1, 1, 0); break;
>
>> > +#endif /* __WORDSIZE == 64 */
>> 
>> #endif comment is now incorrect
>
> Good catch indeed!

Thanks: fixed in v5.

>> 
>> > +			case __LINE__:
>> 
>> The "case" should be further left, no?
>
> You're right!
>
> Thank you!
> Willy

Thank you for the review!