tests/tcg/s390x/Makefile.target | 1 + tests/tcg/s390x/overflow.c | 58 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 2 files changed, 59 insertions(+) create mode 100644 tests/tcg/s390x/overflow.c
Add a test to check for overflow conditions in s390x.
This patch is based on the following patches :
* https://git.qemu.org/?p=qemu.git;a=commitdiff;h=5a2e67a691501
* https://git.qemu.org/?p=qemu.git;a=commitdiff;h=fc6e0d0f2db51
Signed-off-by: Gautam Agrawal <gautamnagrawal@gmail.com>
---
tests/tcg/s390x/Makefile.target | 1 +
tests/tcg/s390x/overflow.c | 58 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2 files changed, 59 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 tests/tcg/s390x/overflow.c
diff --git a/tests/tcg/s390x/Makefile.target b/tests/tcg/s390x/Makefile.target
index 3124172736..7f86de85b9 100644
--- a/tests/tcg/s390x/Makefile.target
+++ b/tests/tcg/s390x/Makefile.target
@@ -16,6 +16,7 @@ TESTS+=shift
TESTS+=trap
TESTS+=signals-s390x
TESTS+=branch-relative-long
+TESTS+=overflow
VECTOR_TESTS=vxeh2_vs
VECTOR_TESTS+=vxeh2_vcvt
diff --git a/tests/tcg/s390x/overflow.c b/tests/tcg/s390x/overflow.c
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000..ea8a410b1a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tests/tcg/s390x/overflow.c
@@ -0,0 +1,58 @@
+#include <stdio.h>
+
+int overflow_add_32(int x, int y)
+{
+ int sum;
+ return __builtin_add_overflow(x, y, &sum);
+}
+
+int overflow_add_64(long long x, long long y)
+{
+ long sum;
+ return __builtin_add_overflow(x, y, &sum);
+}
+
+int overflow_sub_32(int x, int y)
+{
+ int sum;
+ return __builtin_sub_overflow(x, y, &sum);
+}
+
+int overflow_sub_64(long long x, long long y)
+{
+ long sum;
+ return __builtin_sub_overflow(x, y, &sum);
+}
+
+int a1_add = -2147483648;
+int b1_add = -2147483648;
+long long a2_add = -9223372036854775808ULL;
+long long b2_add = -9223372036854775808ULL;
+
+int a1_sub;
+int b1_sub = -2147483648;
+long long a2_sub = 0L;
+long long b2_sub = -9223372036854775808ULL;
+
+int main()
+{
+ int ret = 0;
+
+ if (!overflow_add_32(a1_add, b1_add)) {
+ fprintf(stderr, "data overflow while adding 32 bits\n");
+ ret = 1;
+ }
+ if (!overflow_add_64(a2_add, b2_add)) {
+ fprintf(stderr, "data overflow while adding 64 bits\n");
+ ret = 1;
+ }
+ if (!overflow_sub_32(a1_sub, b1_sub)) {
+ fprintf(stderr, "data overflow while subtracting 32 bits\n");
+ ret = 1;
+ }
+ if (!overflow_sub_64(a2_sub, b2_sub)) {
+ fprintf(stderr, "data overflow while subtracting 64 bits\n");
+ ret = 1;
+ }
+ return ret;
+}
--
2.34.1
On 27.05.22 12:11, Gautam Agrawal wrote: > Add a test to check for overflow conditions in s390x. > This patch is based on the following patches : > * https://git.qemu.org/?p=qemu.git;a=commitdiff;h=5a2e67a691501 > * https://git.qemu.org/?p=qemu.git;a=commitdiff;h=fc6e0d0f2db51 > > Signed-off-by: Gautam Agrawal <gautamnagrawal@gmail.com> > --- > tests/tcg/s390x/Makefile.target | 1 + > tests/tcg/s390x/overflow.c | 58 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 2 files changed, 59 insertions(+) > create mode 100644 tests/tcg/s390x/overflow.c > > diff --git a/tests/tcg/s390x/Makefile.target b/tests/tcg/s390x/Makefile.target > index 3124172736..7f86de85b9 100644 > --- a/tests/tcg/s390x/Makefile.target > +++ b/tests/tcg/s390x/Makefile.target > @@ -16,6 +16,7 @@ TESTS+=shift > TESTS+=trap > TESTS+=signals-s390x > TESTS+=branch-relative-long > +TESTS+=overflow > > VECTOR_TESTS=vxeh2_vs > VECTOR_TESTS+=vxeh2_vcvt > diff --git a/tests/tcg/s390x/overflow.c b/tests/tcg/s390x/overflow.c > new file mode 100644 > index 0000000000..ea8a410b1a > --- /dev/null > +++ b/tests/tcg/s390x/overflow.c > @@ -0,0 +1,58 @@ > +#include <stdio.h> > + > +int overflow_add_32(int x, int y) > +{ > + int sum; > + return __builtin_add_overflow(x, y, &sum); > +} > + > +int overflow_add_64(long long x, long long y) > +{ > + long sum; Just wondering, why "long long" in input and "long" in output? > + return __builtin_add_overflow(x, y, &sum); > +} > + > +int overflow_sub_32(int x, int y) > +{ > + int sum; > + return __builtin_sub_overflow(x, y, &sum); > +} > + > +int overflow_sub_64(long long x, long long y) > +{ > + long sum; > + return __builtin_sub_overflow(x, y, &sum); nit: I'd call all local variables "ret" or "res". Apart from that LGTM. -- Thanks, David / dhildenb
Hi! On 30/05/2022 11.50, David Hildenbrand wrote: > On 27.05.22 12:11, Gautam Agrawal wrote: >> Add a test to check for overflow conditions in s390x. >> This patch is based on the following patches : >> * https://git.qemu.org/?p=qemu.git;a=commitdiff;h=5a2e67a691501 >> * https://git.qemu.org/?p=qemu.git;a=commitdiff;h=fc6e0d0f2db51 >> >> Signed-off-by: Gautam Agrawal <gautamnagrawal@gmail.com> >> --- >> tests/tcg/s390x/Makefile.target | 1 + >> tests/tcg/s390x/overflow.c | 58 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> 2 files changed, 59 insertions(+) >> create mode 100644 tests/tcg/s390x/overflow.c >> >> diff --git a/tests/tcg/s390x/Makefile.target b/tests/tcg/s390x/Makefile.target >> index 3124172736..7f86de85b9 100644 >> --- a/tests/tcg/s390x/Makefile.target >> +++ b/tests/tcg/s390x/Makefile.target >> @@ -16,6 +16,7 @@ TESTS+=shift >> TESTS+=trap >> TESTS+=signals-s390x >> TESTS+=branch-relative-long >> +TESTS+=overflow >> >> VECTOR_TESTS=vxeh2_vs >> VECTOR_TESTS+=vxeh2_vcvt >> diff --git a/tests/tcg/s390x/overflow.c b/tests/tcg/s390x/overflow.c >> new file mode 100644 >> index 0000000000..ea8a410b1a >> --- /dev/null >> +++ b/tests/tcg/s390x/overflow.c >> @@ -0,0 +1,58 @@ >> +#include <stdio.h> >> + >> +int overflow_add_32(int x, int y) >> +{ >> + int sum; >> + return __builtin_add_overflow(x, y, &sum); >> +} >> + >> +int overflow_add_64(long long x, long long y) >> +{ >> + long sum; > > Just wondering, why "long long" in input and "long" in output? It's been like this in the original test program that has been supplied in https://gitlab.com/qemu-project/qemu/-/issues/616 and .../618 - but I agree it likely makes more sense to use the same type everywhere (i.e. switch sum from long to long long). >> + return __builtin_add_overflow(x, y, &sum); >> +} >> + >> +int overflow_sub_32(int x, int y) >> +{ >> + int sum; >> + return __builtin_sub_overflow(x, y, &sum); >> +} >> + >> +int overflow_sub_64(long long x, long long y) >> +{ >> + long sum; >> + return __builtin_sub_overflow(x, y, &sum); > > nit: I'd call all local variables "ret" or "res". Well, "sum" is not the return value here, so "ret" could be confusing, too. "res" or "diff" might be a good choice here, though. Gautam, what do you think? Thomas
Hi, On Mon, 30 May 2022 at 16:05, Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> wrote: > > Hi! > > On 30/05/2022 11.50, David Hildenbrand wrote: > > On 27.05.22 12:11, Gautam Agrawal wrote: > >> Add a test to check for overflow conditions in s390x. > >> This patch is based on the following patches : > >> * https://git.qemu.org/?p=qemu.git;a=commitdiff;h=5a2e67a691501 > >> * https://git.qemu.org/?p=qemu.git;a=commitdiff;h=fc6e0d0f2db51 > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Gautam Agrawal <gautamnagrawal@gmail.com> > >> --- > >> tests/tcg/s390x/Makefile.target | 1 + > >> tests/tcg/s390x/overflow.c | 58 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > >> 2 files changed, 59 insertions(+) > >> create mode 100644 tests/tcg/s390x/overflow.c > >> > >> diff --git a/tests/tcg/s390x/Makefile.target b/tests/tcg/s390x/Makefile.target > >> index 3124172736..7f86de85b9 100644 > >> --- a/tests/tcg/s390x/Makefile.target > >> +++ b/tests/tcg/s390x/Makefile.target > >> @@ -16,6 +16,7 @@ TESTS+=shift > >> TESTS+=trap > >> TESTS+=signals-s390x > >> TESTS+=branch-relative-long > >> +TESTS+=overflow > >> > >> VECTOR_TESTS=vxeh2_vs > >> VECTOR_TESTS+=vxeh2_vcvt > >> diff --git a/tests/tcg/s390x/overflow.c b/tests/tcg/s390x/overflow.c > >> new file mode 100644 > >> index 0000000000..ea8a410b1a > >> --- /dev/null > >> +++ b/tests/tcg/s390x/overflow.c > >> @@ -0,0 +1,58 @@ > >> +#include <stdio.h> > >> + > >> +int overflow_add_32(int x, int y) > >> +{ > >> + int sum; > >> + return __builtin_add_overflow(x, y, &sum); > >> +} > >> + > >> +int overflow_add_64(long long x, long long y) > >> +{ > >> + long sum; > > > > Just wondering, why "long long" in input and "long" in output? > It's been like this in the original test program that has been supplied in > https://gitlab.com/qemu-project/qemu/-/issues/616 and .../618 - but I agree > it likely makes more sense to use the same type everywhere (i.e. switch sum > from long to long long). I will correct the type in next patch. > > >> + return __builtin_add_overflow(x, y, &sum); > >> +} > >> + > >> +int overflow_sub_32(int x, int y) > >> +{ > >> + int sum; > >> + return __builtin_sub_overflow(x, y, &sum); > >> +} > >> + > >> +int overflow_sub_64(long long x, long long y) > >> +{ > >> + long sum; > >> + return __builtin_sub_overflow(x, y, &sum); > > > > nit: I'd call all local variables "ret" or "res". > > Well, "sum" is not the return value here, so "ret" could be confusing, too. > "res" or "diff" might be a good choice here, though. Gautam, what do you think? I agree "res" sounds better. Regards, Gautam Agrawal
Gautam Agrawal <gautamnagrawal@gmail.com> writes: > Add a test to check for overflow conditions in s390x. > This patch is based on the following patches : > * https://git.qemu.org/?p=qemu.git;a=commitdiff;h=5a2e67a691501 > * https://git.qemu.org/?p=qemu.git;a=commitdiff;h=fc6e0d0f2db51 > > Signed-off-by: Gautam Agrawal <gautamnagrawal@gmail.com> Acked-by: Alex Bennée <alex.bennee@linaro.org> -- Alex Bennée
© 2016 - 2024 Red Hat, Inc.