Patch for Bug 26283: float.h is missing mandatory C11 fp macros like DBL_DECIMAL_DIG and LDBL_DECIMAL_DIG
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 Index: lib/Headers/float.h === --- lib/Headers/float.h (revision 260194) +++ lib/Headers/float.h (working copy) @@ -68,6 +68,9 @@ #undef FLT_TRUE_MIN #undef DBL_TRUE_MIN #undef LDBL_TRUE_MIN +#undef FLT_DECIMAL_DIG +#undef DBL_DECIMAL_DIG +#undef LDBL_DECIMAL_DIG # endif #endif @@ -119,6 +122,9 @@ # define FLT_TRUE_MIN __FLT_DENORM_MIN__ # define DBL_TRUE_MIN __DBL_DENORM_MIN__ # define LDBL_TRUE_MIN __LDBL_DENORM_MIN__ +# define FLT_DECIMAL_DIG __FLT_DECIMAL_DIG__ +# define DBL_DECIMAL_DIG __DBL_DECIMAL_DIG__ +# define LDBL_DECIMAL_DIG __DECIMAL_DIG__ #endif #endif /* __FLOAT_H */ ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
Re: Patch for Bug 26283: float.h is missing mandatory C11 fp macros like DBL_DECIMAL_DIG and LDBL_DECIMAL_DIG
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 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 > 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 >> > Index: lib/Headers/float.h === --- lib/Headers/float.h (revision 260263) +++ lib/Headers/float.h (working copy) @@ -68,6 +68,9 @@ #undef FLT_TRUE_MIN #undef DBL_TRUE_MIN #undef LDBL_TRUE_MIN +#undef FLT_DECIMAL_DIG +#undef DBL_DECIMAL_DIG +#undef LDBL_DECIMAL_DIG # endif #endif @@ -119,6 +122,9 @@ # define FLT_TRUE_MIN __FLT_DENORM_MIN__ # define DBL_TRUE_MIN __DBL_DENORM_MIN__ # define LDBL_TRUE_MIN __LDBL_DENORM_MIN__ +# define FLT_DECIMAL_DIG __FLT_DECIMAL_DIG__ +# define DBL_DECIMAL_DIG __DBL_DECIMAL_DIG__ +# define LDBL_DECIMAL_DIG __LDBL_DECIMAL_DIG__ #endif #endif /* __FLOAT_H */ ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
Re: Patch for Bug 26283: float.h is missing mandatory C11 fp macros like DBL_DECIMAL_DIG and LDBL_DECIMAL_DIG
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. JT On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 3:58 PM, Richard Smith 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 > 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 >> 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 >>> 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 >>> > 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 >> /* From N1570 draft of C11 Std. */ /* 5.2.4.2.2p11, pp. 30 */ #include #if __STDC_VERSION__ >= 201112L || !defined(__STRICT_ANSI__) #ifndef FLT_RADIX #error "Macro FLT_RADIX missing" #elif FLT_RADIX < 2 # error "Macro FLT_RADIX invalid" #endif #ifndef FLT_MANT_DIG #error "Macro FLT_MANT_DIG missing" #elif FLT_MANT_DIG < 1 # error "Macro FLT_MANT_DIG invalid" #endif #ifndef DBL_MANT_DIG #error "Macro DBL_MANT_DIG missing" #elif DBL_MANT_DIG < 1 # error "Macro DBL_MANT_DIG invalid" #endif #ifndef LDBL_MANT_DIG #error "Macro LDBL_MANT_DIG missing" #elif LDBL_MANT_DIG < 1 # error "Macro LDBL_MANT_DIG invalid" #endif #if (FLT_MANT_DIG > DBL_MANT_DIG) || (DBL_MANT_DIG > LDBL_MANT_DIG) #error "Macro(s) FLT_MANT_DIG, DBL_MANT_DIG, LDBL_MANT_DIG invalid" #endif #ifndef FLT_DECIMAL_DIG #error "Macro FLT_DECIMAL_DIG missing" #elif FLT_DECIMAL_DIG < 6 # error "Macro FLT_DECIMAL_DIG invalid" #endif #ifndef DBL_DECIMAL_DIG #error "Macro DBL_DECIMAL_DIG missing" #elif DBL_DECIMAL_DIG < 10 # error "Macro DBL_DECIMAL_DIG invalid" #endif #ifndef LDBL_DECIMAL_DIG #error "Macro LDBL_DECIMAL_DIG missing" #elif LDBL_DECIMAL_DIG < 10 # error "Macro LDBL_DECIMAL_DIG invalid" #endif #if (
Re: Patch for Bug 26283: float.h is missing mandatory C11 fp macros like DBL_DECIMAL_DIG and LDBL_DECIMAL_DIG
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. 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. Thanks for the help, JT On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 5:56 PM, Richard Smith wrote: > On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 2:43 PM, Jorge Teixeira > 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 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 >>> 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 >>>> 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 >>>>> 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 >>>>> > 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, >>>>>
Re: Patch for Bug 26283: float.h is missing mandatory C11 fp macros like DBL_DECIMAL_DIG and LDBL_DECIMAL_DIG
ore 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 >>>> 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 >>>>> 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 >>>>>> >>>>>> 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 >>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>> > 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 >>>>>> Index: test/Headers/float.c ===
Re: Patch for Bug 26283: float.h is missing mandatory C11 fp macros like DBL_DECIMAL_DIG and LDBL_DECIMAL_DIG
tem. >>> >>>> Thanks for the help, >>>> >>>> JT >>>> >>>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 5:56 PM, Richard Smith >>>> wrote: >>>>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 2:43 PM, Jorge Teixeira >>>>> 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 >>>>>> 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 >>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>> > 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) >>>>>>>>> >>
Re: Patch for Bug 26283: float.h is missing mandatory C11 fp macros like DBL_DECIMAL_DIG and LDBL_DECIMAL_DIG
; >> JT >> >> >> >> On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 3:04 PM, Richard Smith >> >> 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 >> >>> 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 >> >>>> wrote: >> >>>>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 2:43 PM, Jorge Teixeira >> >>>>> 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 >> >>>>>> wrote: >> >>>>>>> Patch looks good. Please al
Re: Patch for Bug 26283: float.h is missing mandatory C11 fp macros like DBL_DECIMAL_DIG and LDBL_DECIMAL_DIG
>> 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 >>> >> >>>> >>> >> >>>> wrote: >>> >> >>>>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 2:43 PM, Jorge Teixeira >>> >> >>>>> 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 ha
Re: Patch for Bug 26283: float.h is missing mandatory C11 fp macros like DBL_DECIMAL_DIG and LDBL_DECIMAL_DIG
; >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> 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 >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> 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 >> >>> >> >>> 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 >> >>> >> &
Re: Patch for Bug 26283: float.h is missing mandatory C11 fp macros like DBL_DECIMAL_DIG and LDBL_DECIMAL_DIG
>> 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 >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> 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 >> >> >>> >> >>> 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 >> >> >>> >&
Re: Patch for Bug 26283: float.h is missing mandatory C11 fp macros like DBL_DECIMAL_DIG and LDBL_DECIMAL_DIG
;> >> >> >>> >> >> // 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 >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> 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 >>> >> >> >>> >> >>> 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 o
