On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 4:53 PM, Jorge Teixeira <j.lopes.teixe...@gmail.com> wrote: >> You'll also need to change <float.h> to only provide DECIMAL_DIG in C99 >> onwards. > Done! > >> All of our -std versions are that standard plus applicable Defect >> Reports. So -std=c89 includes TC1 and TC2, but not Amendment 1 (we >> have -std=c94 for that, but the only difference from our C89 mode is >> the addition of digraphs). > I'll try to find the c89 TC2 and check if anything changed regarding > these macros (unlikely). > >> __STRICT_ANSI__ is defined if Clang has not been asked to provide >> extensions (either GNU extensions, perhaps via a flag like -std=gnu99, >> or MS extensions), and is used by C library headers to determine that >> they should provide a strictly-conforming set of declarations without >> extensions. > Ok, so if !defined(__STRICT__ANSI__) clang should always expose "as > much as possible", including stuff from later versions of the Std. > and/or eventual extensions, just as it now on float.h and float.c, > right?
Yes, that's the idea. >> Testing __STDC_VERSION__ for C94 makes sense if you're trying to >> detect whether Amendment 1 features should be provided. > Since this will affect only digraphs, I guess there is no need (for > float.h, float.c). > >>> 3) Lastly, can you expand (...) >> >> No, it does not mean that. >> >> For PPC64, long double is (sometimes) modeled as a pair of doubles. >> Under that model, the smallest normalized value for long double is >> actually larger than the smallest normalized value for double >> (remember that for a normalized value with exponent E, all numbers of >> the form 1.XXXXX * 2^E, with the right number of mantissa digits, are >> exactly representable, so increasing the number of mantissa bits >> without changing the number of exponent bits increases the magnitude >> of the smallest normalized positive number). >> >> The set of values of long double in this model *is* a superset of the >> set of values of double. >> > I see now, and removed the bogus tests. The patch should now test > cleanly unless something needs DECIMAL_DIG but did not set the > appropriate std. level, or defined __STRICT__ANSI__. Thanks, committed as r260639. (In future, it's preferable to submit a single patch for all affected files rather than one patch per file.) > Thanks for the learning experience, > > JT > > > >>> From /test/Preprocessor/init.cpp: >>> // PPC64:#define __DBL_MIN_EXP__ (-1021) >>> // PPC64:#define __FLT_MIN_EXP__ (-125) >>> // PPC64:#define __LDBL_MIN_EXP__ (-968) >>> >>> This issue happened before >>> (https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnulib/2011-08/msg00262.html, >>> http://www.openwall.com/lists/musl/2013/11/15/1), but all it means is >>> that ppc64 is not compliant with C without soft-float. The test is >>> valid and should stay, and if someone tries to compile for ppc64 in >>> c89, c99 or c11 modes, clang should 1) use soft float (bad idea), 2) >>> issue a diagnostic saying that that arch cannot meet the desired C >>> standard without a big performance penalty - the diag should be >>> suppressible with some special cmd line argument. >>> Thus, I added the tests back and the FAIL for PPC64 for the time >>> being, with a comment. If you know of a way to skip only the specific >>> *_MIN_EXP and *_MIN_10_EXP tests, please add it, because there might >>> be more similar cases in the future. >>> >>> JT >>> >>> On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 3:04 PM, Richard Smith <rich...@metafoo.co.uk> >>> wrote: >>>> Thanks, I modified the test to also test C89 and C99 modes and >>>> committed this as r260577. >>>> >>>> On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 11:29 AM, Jorge Teixeira >>>> <j.lopes.teixe...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> Here is a revised test, which I renamed to c11-5_2_4_2_2p11.c instead >>>>> of float.c because I am only checking a subset of what the standard >>>>> mandates for float.h, and because there were similar precedents, like >>>>> test/Preprocessor/c99-*.c. Feel free to override, though. >>>> >>>> test/Preprocessor/c99-* are an aberration. The goal would be that this >>>> test grows to cover all of the parts of float.h that we define, so >>>> float.c seems like the appropriate name for it. >>>> >>>>> The first part checks for basic compliance with the referred C11 >>>>> paragraph, the second for internal consistency between the underscored >>>>> and exposed versions of the macros. >>>>> No attempt was made to support C99 or C89. >>>>> >>>>> I am not very clear on the proper use of the whole lit.py / RUN >>>>> framework, so someone should really confirm if what I wrote is >>>>> correct. The goal was to test both hosted and freestanding >>>>> implementations with C11, and expect no diagnostics from either. >>>> >>>> We generally avoid testing hosted mode, because we don't want the >>>> success of our tests to depend on the libc installed on the host >>>> system. >>>> >>>>> Thanks for the help, >>>>> >>>>> JT >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 5:56 PM, Richard Smith <rich...@metafoo.co.uk> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 2:43 PM, Jorge Teixeira >>>>>> <j.lopes.teixe...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> Richard, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Can you be more specific? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I assume you mean something like my newly attached .h file that tests >>>>>>> very basic implementation compliance (i.e., it's required, but not >>>>>>> sufficient), but I would need a bit more guidance about the structure >>>>>>> of the file, how to perform the tests, and where to exactly place and >>>>>>> name the file within test/Headers. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I some sort of template exists, or if someone else takes point and >>>>>>> makes it, I can "port" the attached p11 test cases. I am unsure of how >>>>>>> to perform a more normative compliance - for example, to assert that >>>>>>> LDBL_DECIMAL_DIG is 21 on x86-64 and that indeed those many digits are >>>>>>> guaranteed to be correct, etc. This is probably not possible / does >>>>>>> not make sense. >>>>>> >>>>>> That looks like a decent basic test for this. The test should be named >>>>>> something like test/Headers/float.c, and needs to contain a "RUN:" >>>>>> line so that the test runner infrastructure knows how to run it. You >>>>>> can look at test/Header/limits.cpp for an example of how this works. >>>>>> >>>>>> We already have platform-specific tests that __LDBL_DECIMAL_DIG__ is >>>>>> the right value, so you could test the values are correct by checking >>>>>> that LDBL_DECIMAL_DIG == __LDBL_DECIMAL_DIG__. >>>>>> >>>>>>> JT >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 3:58 PM, Richard Smith <rich...@metafoo.co.uk> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> Patch looks good. Please also add a testcase to test/Headers. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 12:08 PM, Hubert Tong via cfe-commits >>>>>>>> <cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>> I see no immediate issue with this patch, but I am not one of the >>>>>>>>> usual >>>>>>>>> reviewers for this part of the code base. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- HT >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 2:56 PM, Jorge Teixeira >>>>>>>>> <j.lopes.teixe...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Thanks Hubert. Somehow I omitted that prefix when typing the macros, >>>>>>>>>> and I did not noticed it when I was testing because on my arch >>>>>>>>>> DECIMAL_DIG is defined to be the LDBL version... >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Updated patch is attached. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> JT >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 1:41 PM, Hubert Tong >>>>>>>>>> <hubert.reinterpretc...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> > There is a __LDBL_DECIMAL_DIG__ predefined macro. __DECIMAL_DIG__ >>>>>>>>>> > will >>>>>>>>>> > not >>>>>>>>>> > always be the same as __LDBL_DECIMAL_DIG__. >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > -- HT >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 11:26 PM, Jorge Teixeira via cfe-commits >>>>>>>>>> > <cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> Hi, I filed the bug (https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=26283) >>>>>>>>>> >> some >>>>>>>>>> >> time ago and nobody picked it up, so here is a trivial patch >>>>>>>>>> >> exposing >>>>>>>>>> >> the missing macros, that to the best of my ability were already >>>>>>>>>> >> present as the internal underscored versions. >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> Perhaps a more general bug about C11 floating point (lack of) >>>>>>>>>> >> conformance should be filed, so that some form of unit test/macro >>>>>>>>>> >> validation could be worked on, but this patch does scratch my >>>>>>>>>> >> current >>>>>>>>>> >> itch. >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> Successfully tested on x86-64 Xubuntu 14.04 with clang 3.8 from >>>>>>>>>> >> the >>>>>>>>>> >> ppa, patched with the attached diff. >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> First contribution, so feel free to suggest improvements or point >>>>>>>>>> >> to >>>>>>>>>> >> more detailed step-by-step instructions/guidelines. >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> Cheers, >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> JT >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>> >> cfe-commits mailing list >>>>>>>>>> >> cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org >>>>>>>>>> >> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> cfe-commits mailing list >>>>>>>>> cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org >>>>>>>>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
