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