diff mbox

[v2,06/30] ldbl-128ibm-compat: Test positional arguments

Message ID 20191025153410.15405-7-gabriel@inconstante.net.br
State New
Headers show

Commit Message

Gabriel F. T. Gomes Oct. 25, 2019, 3:33 p.m. UTC
From: "Gabriel F. T. Gomes" <gabrielftg@linux.ibm.com>

No changes since v1.

-- 8< --
The format string can request positional parameters, instead of relying
on the order in which they appear as arguments.  Since this has an
effect on how the type of each argument is determined, this patch
extends the test cases to use positional parameters with mixed double
and long double types, to verify that the IEEE long double
implementations of *printf work correctly in this scenario.

Tested for powerpc64le.
---
 .../ldbl-128ibm-compat/test-printf-chk-ldbl-compat.c | 12 +++++++++++-
 .../ldbl-128ibm-compat/test-printf-ldbl-compat.c     | 12 +++++++++++-
 .../test-wprintf-chk-ldbl-compat.c                   |  9 ++++++++-
 .../ldbl-128ibm-compat/test-wprintf-ldbl-compat.c    |  9 ++++++++-
 4 files changed, 38 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

Comments

Paul E Murphy Nov. 4, 2019, 4:55 p.m. UTC | #1
On 10/25/19 10:33 AM, Gabriel F. T. Gomes wrote:
> From: "Gabriel F. T. Gomes" <gabrielftg@linux.ibm.com>
> 
> No changes since v1.
> 
> -- 8< --
> The format string can request positional parameters, instead of relying
> on the order in which they appear as arguments.  Since this has an
> effect on how the type of each argument is determined, this patch
> extends the test cases to use positional parameters with mixed double
> and long double types, to verify that the IEEE long double
> implementations of *printf work correctly in this scenario.
> 
> Tested for powerpc64le.

OK. Are there any other weird cases which should be tested against? Are 
these meant to be implicit tests of the underlying ABI?
Gabriel F. T. Gomes Nov. 6, 2019, 5:28 p.m. UTC | #2
Hi, Paul,

On Mon, 04 Nov 2019, Paul E Murphy wrote:

>OK. Are there any other weird cases which should be tested against? Are 
>these meant to be implicit tests of the underlying ABI?

I haven't thought of other weird cases.  This test for positional
parameters, as well as the test for double typed variables (previous patch
in this set) check that the relevant code paths in __vfprintf_internal
(added by commit ID 1626f499d159, but not yet fully used so far) are
working as designed.  These tests are an attempt to improve the testing of
vfprintf as suggested by Joseph in a somewhat old message [1].

[1] https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2018-06/msg00084.html
diff mbox

Patch

diff --git a/sysdeps/ieee754/ldbl-128ibm-compat/test-printf-chk-ldbl-compat.c b/sysdeps/ieee754/ldbl-128ibm-compat/test-printf-chk-ldbl-compat.c
index e8e124425b..153a35d451 100644
--- a/sysdeps/ieee754/ldbl-128ibm-compat/test-printf-chk-ldbl-compat.c
+++ b/sysdeps/ieee754/ldbl-128ibm-compat/test-printf-chk-ldbl-compat.c
@@ -139,6 +139,10 @@  do_test_call (void)
   /* Print in hexadecimal notation.  */
   do_test_call_rarg (stdout, "%.10La, %.10a", ld, d);
   do_test_call_varg (stdout, "%.10La, %.10a", ld, d);
+
+  /* Test positional parameters.  */
+  do_test_call_varg (stdout, "%3$Lf, %2$Lf, %1$f",
+		     (double) 1, (long double) 2, (long double) 3);
 }
 
 static int
@@ -172,7 +176,13 @@  do_test (void)
     "    __vfprintf_chk: -0x1.0000000000p+0, -0x1.0000000000p+0\n"
     "     __vprintf_chk: -0x1.0000000000p+0, -0x1.0000000000p+0\n"
     "   __vsnprintf_chk: -0x1.0000000000p+0, -0x1.0000000000p+0\n"
-    "    __vsprintf_chk: -0x1.0000000000p+0, -0x1.0000000000p+0\n";
+    "    __vsprintf_chk: -0x1.0000000000p+0, -0x1.0000000000p+0\n"
+    "   __vasprintf_chk: 3.000000, 2.000000, 1.000000\n"
+    "    __vdprintf_chk: 3.000000, 2.000000, 1.000000\n"
+    "    __vfprintf_chk: 3.000000, 2.000000, 1.000000\n"
+    "     __vprintf_chk: 3.000000, 2.000000, 1.000000\n"
+    "   __vsnprintf_chk: 3.000000, 2.000000, 1.000000\n"
+    "    __vsprintf_chk: 3.000000, 2.000000, 1.000000\n";
   TEST_COMPARE_STRING (expected, result.out.buffer);
 
   return 0;
diff --git a/sysdeps/ieee754/ldbl-128ibm-compat/test-printf-ldbl-compat.c b/sysdeps/ieee754/ldbl-128ibm-compat/test-printf-ldbl-compat.c
index 2b8d424473..5b0e8d3bae 100644
--- a/sysdeps/ieee754/ldbl-128ibm-compat/test-printf-ldbl-compat.c
+++ b/sysdeps/ieee754/ldbl-128ibm-compat/test-printf-ldbl-compat.c
@@ -130,6 +130,10 @@  do_test_call (void)
   /* Print in hexadecimal notation.  */
   do_test_call_rarg (stdout, "%.10La, %.10a", ld, d);
   do_test_call_varg (stdout, "%.10La, %.10a", ld, d);
+
+  /* Test positional parameters.  */
+  do_test_call_varg (stdout, "%3$Lf, %2$Lf, %1$f",
+		     (double) 1, (long double) 2, (long double) 3);
 }
 
 static int
@@ -163,7 +167,13 @@  do_test (void)
     "     vfprintf: -0x1.0000000000p+0, -0x1.0000000000p+0\n"
     "      vprintf: -0x1.0000000000p+0, -0x1.0000000000p+0\n"
     "    vsnprintf: -0x1.0000000000p+0, -0x1.0000000000p+0\n"
-    "     vsprintf: -0x1.0000000000p+0, -0x1.0000000000p+0\n";
+    "     vsprintf: -0x1.0000000000p+0, -0x1.0000000000p+0\n"
+    "    vasprintf: 3.000000, 2.000000, 1.000000\n"
+    "     vdprintf: 3.000000, 2.000000, 1.000000\n"
+    "     vfprintf: 3.000000, 2.000000, 1.000000\n"
+    "      vprintf: 3.000000, 2.000000, 1.000000\n"
+    "    vsnprintf: 3.000000, 2.000000, 1.000000\n"
+    "     vsprintf: 3.000000, 2.000000, 1.000000\n";
   TEST_COMPARE_STRING (expected, result.out.buffer);
 
   return 0;
diff --git a/sysdeps/ieee754/ldbl-128ibm-compat/test-wprintf-chk-ldbl-compat.c b/sysdeps/ieee754/ldbl-128ibm-compat/test-wprintf-chk-ldbl-compat.c
index 0dcabec38a..49174625d4 100644
--- a/sysdeps/ieee754/ldbl-128ibm-compat/test-wprintf-chk-ldbl-compat.c
+++ b/sysdeps/ieee754/ldbl-128ibm-compat/test-wprintf-chk-ldbl-compat.c
@@ -85,6 +85,10 @@  do_test_call (void)
   /* Print in hexadecimal notation.  */
   do_test_call_rarg (stdout, L"%.10La, %.10a", ld, d);
   do_test_call_varg (stdout, L"%.10La, %.10a", ld, d);
+
+  /* Test positional parameters.  */
+  do_test_call_varg (stdout, L"%3$Lf, %2$Lf, %1$f",
+		     (double) 1, (long double) 2, (long double) 3);
 }
 
 static int
@@ -106,7 +110,10 @@  do_test (void)
     "     __wprintf_chk: -0x1.0000000000p+0, -0x1.0000000000p+0\n"
     "   __vfwprintf_chk: -0x1.0000000000p+0, -0x1.0000000000p+0\n"
     "   __vswprintf_chk: -0x1.0000000000p+0, -0x1.0000000000p+0\n"
-    "    __vwprintf_chk: -0x1.0000000000p+0, -0x1.0000000000p+0\n";
+    "    __vwprintf_chk: -0x1.0000000000p+0, -0x1.0000000000p+0\n"
+    "   __vfwprintf_chk: 3.000000, 2.000000, 1.000000\n"
+    "   __vswprintf_chk: 3.000000, 2.000000, 1.000000\n"
+    "    __vwprintf_chk: 3.000000, 2.000000, 1.000000\n";
   TEST_COMPARE_STRING (expected, result.out.buffer);
 
   return 0;
diff --git a/sysdeps/ieee754/ldbl-128ibm-compat/test-wprintf-ldbl-compat.c b/sysdeps/ieee754/ldbl-128ibm-compat/test-wprintf-ldbl-compat.c
index def4337571..008275f529 100644
--- a/sysdeps/ieee754/ldbl-128ibm-compat/test-wprintf-ldbl-compat.c
+++ b/sysdeps/ieee754/ldbl-128ibm-compat/test-wprintf-ldbl-compat.c
@@ -83,6 +83,10 @@  do_test_call (void)
   /* Print in hexadecimal notation.  */
   do_test_call_rarg (stdout, L"%.10La, %.10a", ld, d);
   do_test_call_varg (stdout, L"%.10La, %.10a", ld, d);
+
+  /* Test positional parameters.  */
+  do_test_call_varg (stdout, L"%3$Lf, %2$Lf, %1$f",
+		     (double) 1, (long double) 2, (long double) 3);
 }
 
 static int
@@ -104,7 +108,10 @@  do_test (void)
     "      wprintf: -0x1.0000000000p+0, -0x1.0000000000p+0\n"
     "    vfwprintf: -0x1.0000000000p+0, -0x1.0000000000p+0\n"
     "    vswprintf: -0x1.0000000000p+0, -0x1.0000000000p+0\n"
-    "     vwprintf: -0x1.0000000000p+0, -0x1.0000000000p+0\n";
+    "     vwprintf: -0x1.0000000000p+0, -0x1.0000000000p+0\n"
+    "    vfwprintf: 3.000000, 2.000000, 1.000000\n"
+    "    vswprintf: 3.000000, 2.000000, 1.000000\n"
+    "     vwprintf: 3.000000, 2.000000, 1.000000\n";
   TEST_COMPARE_STRING (expected, result.out.buffer);
 
   return 0;