[PATCH] Fix stdio-common/bug16.c
Jakub Jelinek
jakub@redhat.com
Tue Aug 8 11:54:00 GMT 2006
Hi!
This new test fails on ppc{,64}, s390{,x} (and I expect any other IEEE quad
or IBM extended long double arch). The ISO C99 standard only requires that
before the dot (or P/p letter) is a non-zero hexadecimal digit (unless
subnormal), and as we do assume FLT_RADIX 2, that leaves us with 1, 2, 4 or
8. On ppc*/s390* indeed snprintf prints 0x2P-1 rather than 0x1P+0.
Tested that this test still fails on x86_64 with broken glibc.
2006-08-08 Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
* stdio-common/bug16.c (tests): New array.
(do_tests): Allow the first hexadecimal digit
to be 1, 2, 4 or 8. Do 3 additional tests.
--- libc/stdio-common/bug16.c.jj 2006-08-03 11:24:39.000000000 +0200
+++ libc/stdio-common/bug16.c 2006-08-08 10:38:11.000000000 +0200
@@ -1,19 +1,42 @@
#include <stdio.h>
#include <string.h>
+struct
+{
+ long double val;
+ const char str[4][7];
+} tests[] =
+{
+ { 0x0.FFFFp+0L, { "0X1P+0", "0X2P-1", "0X4P-2", "0X8P-3" } },
+ { 0x0.FFFFp+1L, { "0X1P+1", "0X2P+0", "0X4P-1", "0X8P-2" } },
+ { 0x0.FFFFp+2L, { "0X1P+2", "0X2P+1", "0X4P+0", "0X8P-1" } },
+ { 0x0.FFFFp+3L, { "0X1P+3", "0X2P+2", "0X4P+1", "0X8P+0" } }
+};
+
static int
do_test (void)
{
char buf[100];
- snprintf (buf, sizeof (buf), "%.0LA", 0x0.FFFFp+0L);
+ int ret = 0;
+
+ for (size_t i = 0; i < sizeof (tests) / sizeof (tests[0]); ++i)
+ {
+ snprintf (buf, sizeof (buf), "%.0LA", tests[i].val);
+
+ size_t j;
+ for (j = 0; j < 4; ++j)
+ if (strcmp (buf, tests[i].str[j]) == 0)
+ break;
- if (strcmp (buf, "0X1P+0") != 0)
- {
- printf ("got \"%s\", expected \"0X1P+0\"\n", buf);
- return 1;
+ if (j == 4)
+ {
+ printf ("%zd: got \"%s\", expected \"%s\" or equivalent\n",
+ i, buf, tests[i].str[0]);
+ ret = 1;
+ }
}
- return 0;
+ return ret;
}
#define TEST_FUNCTION do_test ()
Jakub
More information about the Libc-hacker
mailing list