[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: proposed new module intprops-test

From: Eric Blake
Subject: Re: proposed new module intprops-test
Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 11:07:15 -0600
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv: Gecko/20110428 Fedora/3.1.10-1.fc14 Lightning/1.0b3pre Mnenhy/0.8.3 Thunderbird/3.1.10

On 05/10/2011 10:57 AM, Paul Eggert wrote:
> Here's a proposed module to test 'intprops'.  It assumes the revised
> patch for integer overflow checking that I emailed a few minutes ago.
> I don't know the recommended way to test this with gnulib-tool;
> I read the --help output and the documentation, but couldn't figure
> it out.  I tested it by hand, though.

./gnulib-tool --with-tests --test intprops

> +/* TYPE_IS_INTEGER.  */
> +verify (! TYPE_IS_INTEGER (long double));

Is TYPE_IS_INTEGER supposed to work on composite types?  In which case,
should we add things like:

verify (! TYPE_IS_INTEGER (void *));

> +verify (TYPE_SIGNED (intmax_t));
> +verify (! TYPE_SIGNED (uintmax_t));

Does TYPE_SIGNED work on floating types?  That is, should we add lines like:

verify (TYPE_SIGNED (double));

> +verify (TYPE_MINIMUM (char) == CHAR_MIN);

> +#ifdef INT32_MAX

Isn't int32_t guaranteed by POSIX?

> +verify (INT_STRLEN_BOUND (int32_t) == sizeof ("-2147483648") - 1);
> +verify (INT_BUFSIZE_BOUND (int32_t) == sizeof ("-2147483648"));
> +#endif
> +#ifdef INT64_MAX

whereas I agree that int64_max is optional (but likely exists everywhere
these days, if via the gnulib replacements).

Eric Blake   address@hidden    +1-801-349-2682
Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]