[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Qemu-block] [PATCH v4 5/5] tests: Add check-qobject for equality te
From: |
Eric Blake |
Subject: |
Re: [Qemu-block] [PATCH v4 5/5] tests: Add check-qobject for equality tests |
Date: |
Wed, 5 Jul 2017 15:05:24 -0500 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.0 |
On 07/05/2017 02:04 PM, Max Reitz wrote:
> Add a new test file (check-qobject.c) for unit tests that concern
> QObjects as a whole.
>
> Its only purpose for now is to test the qobject_is_equal() function.
>
> Signed-off-by: Max Reitz <address@hidden>
> ---
> tests/Makefile.include | 4 +-
> qobject/qnum.c | 16 +-
> tests/check-qobject.c | 404
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 3 files changed, 417 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> create mode 100644 tests/check-qobject.c
>
> +++ b/qobject/qnum.c
> @@ -217,12 +217,16 @@ QNum *qobject_to_qnum(const QObject *obj)
> /**
> * qnum_is_equal(): Test whether the two QNums are equal
> *
> - * Negative integers are never considered equal to unsigned integers.
> - * Doubles are only considered equal to integers if their fractional
> - * part is zero and their integral part is exactly equal to the
> - * integer. Because doubles have limited precision, there are
> - * therefore integers which do not have an equal double (e.g.
> - * INT64_MAX).
> + * This comparison is done independently of the internal
> + * representation. Any two numbers are considered equal if they are
> + * mathmatically equal, that means:
s/mathmatically/mathematically/
> + * - Negative integers are never considered equal to unsigned
> + * integers.
> + * - Floating point values are only considered equal to integers if
> + * their fractional part is zero and their integral part is exactly
> + * equal to the integer. Because doubles have limited precision,
> + * there are therefore integers which do not have an equal floating
> + * point value (e.g. INT64_MAX).
> */
> +static void qobject_is_equal_num_test(void)
> +{
> + QNum *u0, *i0, *d0, *d0p25, *dnan, *um42, *im42, *dm42;
Given my comments on 2/5, do you want a dinf?
> + QNum *umax, *imax, *umax_exact, *umax_exact_p1;
> + QNum *dumax, *dimax, *dumax_exact, *dumax_exact_p1;
> + QString *s0, *s_empty;
> + QBool *bfalse;
> +
> + u0 = qnum_from_uint(0u);
> + i0 = qnum_from_int(0);
> + d0 = qnum_from_double(0.0);
> + d0p25 = qnum_from_double(0.25);
> + dnan = qnum_from_double(0.0 / 0.0);
Are there compilers that complain if we open-code division by zero
instead of using NAN from <math.h> (similarly, if you test infinity, I'd
use the INFINITY macro instead of an open-coded computation)
> + um42 = qnum_from_uint((uint64_t)-42);
> + im42 = qnum_from_int(-42);
> + dm42 = qnum_from_int(-42.0);
> +
> + /* 2^64 - 1: Not exactly representable as a double (needs 64 bits
> + * of precision, but double only has 53). The double equivalent
> + * may be either 2^64 or 2^64 - 2^11. */
> + umax = qnum_from_uint(UINT64_MAX);
> +
> + /* 2^63 - 1: Not exactly representable as a double (needs 63 bits
> + * of precision, but double only has 53). The double equivalent
> + * may be either 2^63 or 2^63 - 2^10. */
> + imax = qnum_from_int(INT64_MAX);
> + /* 2^64 - 2^11: Exactly representable as a double (the least
> + * significant 11 bits are set to 0, so we only need the 53 bits
> + * of precision double offers). This is the maximum value which
> + * is exactly representable both as a uint64_t and a double. */
> + umax_exact = qnum_from_uint(UINT64_MAX - 0x7ff);
> +
> + /* 2^64 - 2^11 + 1: Not exactly representable as a double (needs
> + * 64 bits again), but whereas (double)UINT64_MAX may be rounded
> + * up to 2^64, this will most likely be rounded down to
> + * 2^64 - 2^11. */
> + umax_exact_p1 = qnum_from_uint(UINT64_MAX - 0x7ff + 1);
Nice.
> +
> + dumax = qnum_from_double((double)qnum_get_uint(umax));
> + dimax = qnum_from_double((double)qnum_get_int(imax));
> + dumax_exact = qnum_from_double((double)qnum_get_uint(umax_exact));
> + dumax_exact_p1 = qnum_from_double((double)qnum_get_uint(umax_exact_p1));
Compiler-dependent what values (some) of these doubles hold.
> +
> + s0 = qstring_from_str("0");
> + s_empty = qstring_new();
> + bfalse = qbool_from_bool(false);
> +
> + /* The internal representation should not matter, as long as the
> + * precision is sufficient */
> + test_equality(true, u0, i0, d0);
> +
> + /* No automatic type conversion */
> + test_equality(false, u0, s0, s_empty, bfalse, qnull(), NULL);
> + test_equality(false, i0, s0, s_empty, bfalse, qnull(), NULL);
> + test_equality(false, d0, s0, s_empty, bfalse, qnull(), NULL);
> +
> + /* Do not round */
> + test_equality(false, u0, d0p25);
> + test_equality(false, i0, d0p25);
> +
> + /* Do not assume any object is equal to itself -- note however
> + * that NaN cannot occur in a JSON object anyway. */
> + g_assert(qobject_is_equal(QOBJECT(dnan), QOBJECT(dnan)) == false);
If you test infinity, that also cannot occur in JSON objects.
> +
> + /* No unsigned overflow */
> + test_equality(false, um42, im42);
> + test_equality(false, um42, dm42);
> + test_equality(true, im42, dm42);
> +
> +
> + /*
> + * Floating point values must match integers exactly to be
> + * considered equal; it does not suffice that converting the
> + * integer to a double yields the same value.
> + * Each of the following four tests follows the same pattern:
> + * 1. Check that both QNum objects compare unequal because they
> + * are (mathematically). The third test is an exception,
> + * because here they are indeed equal.
> + * 2. Check that when converting the integer QNum to a double,
> + * that value is equal to the double QNum. We can thus see
> + * that the QNum comparison does not simply convert the
> + * integer to a floating point value (in a potentially lossy
> + * operation).
> + * 3. Sanity checks: Check that the double QNum has the expected
> + * value (which may be one of two in case it was rounded; the
> + * exact result is then implementation-defined).
> + * If there are multiple valid values, check that they are
> + * distinct values when represented as double (just proving
> + * that our assumptions about the precision of doubles are
> + * correct).
> + *
> + * The first two tests are interesting because they may involve a
> + * double value which is out of the uint64_t or int64_t range,
> + * respectively (if it is rounded to 2^64 or 2^63 during
> + * conversion).
> + *
> + * Since both are intended to involve rounding the value up during
> + * conversion, we also have the fourth test which is indended to
s/indended/intended/
> + * test behavior if the value was rounded down. This is the fourth
> + * test.
> + *
> + * The third test simply proves that the value used in the fourth
> + * test is indeed just one above a number that can be exactly
> + * represented in a double.
> + */
> +
> + test_equality(false, umax, dumax);
> + g_assert(qnum_get_double(umax) == qnum_get_double(dumax));
> + g_assert(qnum_get_double(dumax) == 0x1p64 ||
> + qnum_get_double(dumax) == 0x1p64 - 0x1p11);
> + g_assert(0x1p64 != 0x1p64 - 0x1p11);
> +
> + test_equality(false, imax, dimax);
> + g_assert(qnum_get_double(imax) == qnum_get_double(dimax));
> + g_assert(qnum_get_double(dimax) == 0x1p63 ||
> + qnum_get_double(dimax) == 0x1p63 - 0x1p10);
> + g_assert(0x1p63 != 0x1p63 - 0x1p10);
> +
> + test_equality(true, umax_exact, dumax_exact);
> + g_assert(qnum_get_double(umax_exact) == qnum_get_double(dumax_exact));
> + g_assert(qnum_get_double(dumax_exact) == 0x1p64 - 0x1p11);
> +
> + test_equality(false, umax_exact_p1, dumax_exact_p1);
> + g_assert(qnum_get_double(umax_exact_p1) ==
> qnum_get_double(dumax_exact_p1));
> + g_assert(qnum_get_double(dumax_exact_p1) == 0x1p64 ||
> + qnum_get_double(dumax_exact_p1) == 0x1p64 - 0x1p11);
> + g_assert(0x1p64 != 0x1p64 - 0x1p11);
Okay, and you catered to the indeterminate nature of the compiler
rounding pointed out earlier in the creation of the various doubles.
So all-in-all, you may want to add tests for infinity (given the
undefined nature of casting infinity to integer and any impact to commit
2/5), but what you have looks good:
Reviewed-by: Eric Blake <address@hidden>
--
Eric Blake, Principal Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc. +1-919-301-3266
Virtualization: qemu.org | libvirt.org
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
- Re: [Qemu-block] [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v4 2/5] qapi: Add qobject_is_equal(), (continued)
- Re: [Qemu-block] [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v4 2/5] qapi: Add qobject_is_equal(), Markus Armbruster, 2017/07/06
- Re: [Qemu-block] [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v4 2/5] qapi: Add qobject_is_equal(), Max Reitz, 2017/07/09
- Re: [Qemu-block] [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v4 2/5] qapi: Add qobject_is_equal(), Markus Armbruster, 2017/07/10
- Re: [Qemu-block] [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v4 2/5] qapi: Add qobject_is_equal(), Max Reitz, 2017/07/10
- Re: [Qemu-block] [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v4 2/5] qapi: Add qobject_is_equal(), Markus Armbruster, 2017/07/11
- Re: [Qemu-block] [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v4 2/5] qapi: Add qobject_is_equal(), Max Reitz, 2017/07/11
[Qemu-block] [PATCH v4 3/5] block: qobject_is_equal() in bdrv_reopen_prepare(), Max Reitz, 2017/07/05
[Qemu-block] [PATCH v4 4/5] iotests: Add test for non-string option reopening, Max Reitz, 2017/07/05
[Qemu-block] [PATCH v4 5/5] tests: Add check-qobject for equality tests, Max Reitz, 2017/07/05
- Re: [Qemu-block] [PATCH v4 5/5] tests: Add check-qobject for equality tests,
Eric Blake <=