qf/quakeforge
0
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://git.code.sf.net/p/quake/quakeforge synced 2024-12-02 00:52:19 +00:00
Code Issues Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity
quakeforge/libs/gamecode/test/test-string.c

89 lines
2.7 KiB
C
Raw Normal View History

[gamecode] Add tests for string ops Does not include string concatenation because I don't feel like messing with zone init, but all the other operators are tested (currently failing due to bool convention)
2022-01-14 13:42:56 +00:00
#include "head.c"
const char test_strings[] =
"\0"
"abc\0"
"def\0"
"abc\0";
static pr_int_t string_globals_init[] = {
0, 1, 5, 9, // string pointers
0, 0, 0, 0,
8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8,
8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8,
8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8,
8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8,
8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8,
8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8,
8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8,
};
static pr_int_t string_globals_expect[] = {
0, 1, 5, 9, // string pointers
0, 0, 8, 0,
// "\0" "abc" "def" "abc"
-1, 0, 0, 0, 0, -1, 0, -1, 0, 0, -1, 0, 0, -1, 0, -1, // eq
0, -1, -1, -1, 0, 0, -1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, -1, 0, // lt
0, 0, 0, 0, -1, 0, 0, 0, -1, -1, 0, -1, -1, 0, 0, 0, // gt
[gamecode] Fix a pile of UB in the test cases I always suspected the overflow conversions were UB, but with gcc doing different things on arm, I thought it was about time to abandon those particular tests. What I was not expecting was for the return value of strcmp to be "UB" (in that there's no guarantee of the exact value, just < = > 0). Fortunately, nothing actually relies on the value of the op other than the tests, so modify the test to make the behavior well defined.
2023-03-25 07:46:46 +00:00
0, -1, -1, -1, 1, 0, -1, 0, 1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 0, -1, 0, // cmp
[gamecode] Add tests for string ops Does not include string concatenation because I don't feel like messing with zone init, but all the other operators are tested (currently failing due to bool convention)
2022-01-14 13:42:56 +00:00
-1, 0, 0, 0, -1, -1, 0, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, 0, -1, // ge
-1, -1, -1, -1, 0, -1, -1, -1, 0, 0, -1, 0, 0, -1, -1, -1, // le
-1, -1, -1, -1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, // not
};
static dstatement_t string_statements[] = {
{ OP(0, 0, 0, OP_LEA_A), 24, 0, 6 }, // init k
// for (i = 4; i-- > 0; ) {
{ OP(0, 0, 0, OP_LEA_A), 4, 0, 4 },
[gamecode] Rearrange several instructions ANY/ALL/NONE have been temporarily removed until I implement the HOPS (horizontal operations) sub-instructions, which will all both 32-bit and 64-bit operands and several other operations (eg, horizontal add). All the fancy addressing modes for the conditional branch instructions have been permanently removed: I decided the gain was too little for the cost (24 instructions vs 6). JUMP and CALL retain their addressing modes, though. Other instructions have been shuffled around a little to fill most of the holes in the upper block of 256 instructions: just a single small 7-instruction hole. Rearrangements in the actual engine are mostly just to keep the code organized. The only real changes were the various IF statements and dealing with the resulting changes in their addressing.
2022-01-16 05:22:04 +00:00
{ OP(0, 0, 0, OP_IFA), 2, 0, 4 },
[gamecode] Add tests for string ops Does not include string concatenation because I don't feel like messing with zone init, but all the other operators are tested (currently failing due to bool convention)
2022-01-14 13:42:56 +00:00
{ OP(0, 0, 0, OP_BREAK), 0, 0, 0 },
{ OP(0, 0, 0, OP_LEA_C), 4, -1, 4 }, // dec i
{ OP(0, 0, 0, OP_WITH), 4, 4, 1 }, // load i
// for (j = 4; j-- > 0; ) {
{ OP(0, 0, 0, OP_LEA_A), 4, 0, 5 }, // init j
[gamecode] Rearrange several instructions ANY/ALL/NONE have been temporarily removed until I implement the HOPS (horizontal operations) sub-instructions, which will all both 32-bit and 64-bit operands and several other operations (eg, horizontal add). All the fancy addressing modes for the conditional branch instructions have been permanently removed: I decided the gain was too little for the cost (24 instructions vs 6). JUMP and CALL retain their addressing modes, though. Other instructions have been shuffled around a little to fill most of the holes in the upper block of 256 instructions: just a single small 7-instruction hole. Rearrangements in the actual engine are mostly just to keep the code organized. The only real changes were the various IF statements and dealing with the resulting changes in their addressing.
2022-01-16 05:22:04 +00:00
{ OP(0, 0, 0, OP_IFA), 2, 0, 5 },
[gamecode] Add tests for string ops Does not include string concatenation because I don't feel like messing with zone init, but all the other operators are tested (currently failing due to bool convention)
2022-01-14 13:42:56 +00:00
{ OP(0, 0, 0, OP_JUMP_A), -6, 0, 0 },
{ OP(0, 0, 0, OP_LEA_C), 5, -1, 5 }, // dec j
{ OP(0, 0, 0, OP_WITH), 4, 5, 2 }, // load j
{ OP(0, 0, 0, OP_LEA_C), 6, -1, 6 }, // dec k
{ OP(0, 0, 0, OP_WITH), 4, 6, 3 }, // load k
// i j k
{ OP(1, 2, 3, OP_EQ_S), 0, 0, 0 },
{ OP(1, 2, 3, OP_LT_S), 0, 0, 16 },
{ OP(1, 2, 3, OP_GT_S), 0, 0, 32 },
{ OP(1, 2, 3, OP_CMP_S), 0, 0, 48 },
[gamecode] Fix a pile of UB in the test cases I always suspected the overflow conversions were UB, but with gcc doing different things on arm, I thought it was about time to abandon those particular tests. What I was not expecting was for the return value of strcmp to be "UB" (in that there's no guarantee of the exact value, just < = > 0). Fortunately, nothing actually relies on the value of the op other than the tests, so modify the test to make the behavior well defined.
2023-03-25 07:46:46 +00:00
{ OP(3, 0, 0, OP_LT_I_1), 48, 0, 7 }, // convert < 0, 0, > 0 to -1, 0, 1
{ OP(3, 0, 3, OP_GT_I_1), 48, 0, 48 }, // ...
{ OP(0, 3, 3, OP_SUB_I_1), 7, 48, 48 }, // ...
[gamecode] Add tests for string ops Does not include string concatenation because I don't feel like messing with zone init, but all the other operators are tested (currently failing due to bool convention)
2022-01-14 13:42:56 +00:00
{ OP(1, 2, 3, OP_GE_S), 0, 0, 64 },
{ OP(1, 2, 3, OP_LE_S), 0, 0, 80 },
{ OP(1, 2, 3, OP_NOT_S), 0, 0, 96 },
[gamecode] Make commented braces match They annoyed me
2022-01-14 13:51:18 +00:00
// }
[gamecode] Fix a pile of UB in the test cases I always suspected the overflow conversions were UB, but with gcc doing different things on arm, I thought it was about time to abandon those particular tests. What I was not expecting was for the return value of strcmp to be "UB" (in that there's no guarantee of the exact value, just < = > 0). Fortunately, nothing actually relies on the value of the op other than the tests, so modify the test to make the behavior well defined.
2023-03-25 07:46:46 +00:00
{ OP(0, 0, 0, OP_JUMP_A), -16, 0, 0 },
[gamecode] Make commented braces match They annoyed me
2022-01-14 13:51:18 +00:00
// }
[gamecode] Add tests for string ops Does not include string concatenation because I don't feel like messing with zone init, but all the other operators are tested (currently failing due to bool convention)
2022-01-14 13:42:56 +00:00
};
test_t tests[] = {
{
.desc = "string",
[gamecode] Fix a pile of UB in the test cases I always suspected the overflow conversions were UB, but with gcc doing different things on arm, I thought it was about time to abandon those particular tests. What I was not expecting was for the return value of strcmp to be "UB" (in that there's no guarantee of the exact value, just < = > 0). Fortunately, nothing actually relies on the value of the op other than the tests, so modify the test to make the behavior well defined.
2023-03-25 07:46:46 +00:00
.extra_globals = 4 * 1,
[gamecode] Add tests for string ops Does not include string concatenation because I don't feel like messing with zone init, but all the other operators are tested (currently failing due to bool convention)
2022-01-14 13:42:56 +00:00
.num_globals = num_globals (string_globals_init, string_globals_expect),
.num_statements = num_statements (string_statements),
.statements = string_statements,
.init_globals = string_globals_init,
.expect_globals = string_globals_expect,
.strings = test_strings,
.string_size = sizeof (test_strings),
},
};
#include "main.c"
Reference in a new issue Copy permalink