Hi, On Mon, 30 May 2022 at 16:05, Thomas Huth <th...@redhat.com> wrote: > > Hi! > > On 30/05/2022 11.50, David Hildenbrand wrote: > > On 27.05.22 12:11, Gautam Agrawal wrote: > >> Add a test to check for overflow conditions in s390x. > >> This patch is based on the following patches : > >> * https://git.qemu.org/?p=qemu.git;a=commitdiff;h=5a2e67a691501 > >> * https://git.qemu.org/?p=qemu.git;a=commitdiff;h=fc6e0d0f2db51 > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Gautam Agrawal <gautamnagra...@gmail.com> > >> --- > >> tests/tcg/s390x/Makefile.target | 1 + > >> tests/tcg/s390x/overflow.c | 58 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > >> 2 files changed, 59 insertions(+) > >> create mode 100644 tests/tcg/s390x/overflow.c > >> > >> diff --git a/tests/tcg/s390x/Makefile.target > >> b/tests/tcg/s390x/Makefile.target > >> index 3124172736..7f86de85b9 100644 > >> --- a/tests/tcg/s390x/Makefile.target > >> +++ b/tests/tcg/s390x/Makefile.target > >> @@ -16,6 +16,7 @@ TESTS+=shift > >> TESTS+=trap > >> TESTS+=signals-s390x > >> TESTS+=branch-relative-long > >> +TESTS+=overflow > >> > >> VECTOR_TESTS=vxeh2_vs > >> VECTOR_TESTS+=vxeh2_vcvt > >> diff --git a/tests/tcg/s390x/overflow.c b/tests/tcg/s390x/overflow.c > >> new file mode 100644 > >> index 0000000000..ea8a410b1a > >> --- /dev/null > >> +++ b/tests/tcg/s390x/overflow.c > >> @@ -0,0 +1,58 @@ > >> +#include <stdio.h> > >> + > >> +int overflow_add_32(int x, int y) > >> +{ > >> + int sum; > >> + return __builtin_add_overflow(x, y, &sum); > >> +} > >> + > >> +int overflow_add_64(long long x, long long y) > >> +{ > >> + long sum; > > > > Just wondering, why "long long" in input and "long" in output?
> It's been like this in the original test program that has been supplied in > https://gitlab.com/qemu-project/qemu/-/issues/616 and .../618 - but I agree > it likely makes more sense to use the same type everywhere (i.e. switch sum > from long to long long). I will correct the type in next patch. > > >> + return __builtin_add_overflow(x, y, &sum); > >> +} > >> + > >> +int overflow_sub_32(int x, int y) > >> +{ > >> + int sum; > >> + return __builtin_sub_overflow(x, y, &sum); > >> +} > >> + > >> +int overflow_sub_64(long long x, long long y) > >> +{ > >> + long sum; > >> + return __builtin_sub_overflow(x, y, &sum); > > > > nit: I'd call all local variables "ret" or "res". > > Well, "sum" is not the return value here, so "ret" could be confusing, too. > "res" or "diff" might be a good choice here, though. Gautam, what do you > think? I agree "res" sounds better. Regards, Gautam Agrawal
