On 2023-06-04 13:59:42+0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
On Sun, Jun 04, 2023 at 12:50:03PM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
On Tue, May 30, 2023 at 11:18:00AM +0200, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
On 32bit platforms size_t is not enough to represent [u]int_fast64_t.
Fixes: 3e9fd4e9a1d5 ("tools/nolibc: add integer types and integer limit macros") Signed-off-by: Thomas Weißschuh linux@weissschuh.net
Cc: Vincent Dagonneau v@vda.io
Note: We could also fall back to compiler-provided data like:
__UINT_FAST{8,16,32,64}_{TYPE,MIN,MAX}__
I'm fine with the way you did it. I'm wondering how we managed to miss this one given the tests in place!
BTW, it failed on 32-bit platforms:
4407 tests passed, 84 skipped, 63 failed $ grep '^linux_arch|FAIL' test14.out linux_arch=i386 qemu_arch=i386 gcc_arch=i386 52 limit_int_fast64_min = -2147483648 [FAIL] 53 limit_int_fast64_max = 2147483647 [FAIL] 54 limit_uint_fast64_max = 4294967295 [FAIL]
The reason is that the constants also have to be adjusted. With the fix below everything works right:
--- a/tools/include/nolibc/stdint.h +++ b/tools/include/nolibc/stdint.h @@ -84,17 +84,17 @@ typedef uint64_t uintmax_t; #define INT_FAST8_MIN INT8_MIN #define INT_FAST16_MIN INTPTR_MIN #define INT_FAST32_MIN INTPTR_MIN -#define INT_FAST64_MIN INTPTR_MIN +#define INT_FAST64_MIN INT64_MIN #define INT_FAST8_MAX INT8_MAX #define INT_FAST16_MAX INTPTR_MAX #define INT_FAST32_MAX INTPTR_MAX -#define INT_FAST64_MAX INTPTR_MAX +#define INT_FAST64_MAX INT64_MAX #define UINT_FAST8_MAX UINT8_MAX #define UINT_FAST16_MAX SIZE_MAX #define UINT_FAST32_MAX SIZE_MAX -#define UINT_FAST64_MAX SIZE_MAX +#define UINT_FAST64_MAX UINT64_MAX #ifndef INT_MIN #define INT_MIN (-__INT_MAX__ - 1)
4470 tests passed, 84 skipped, 0 failed $ grep '^linux_arch|fast64' test15.out linux_arch=i386 qemu_arch=i386 gcc_arch=i386 52 limit_int_fast64_min = -9223372036854775808 [OK] 53 limit_int_fast64_max = 9223372036854775807 [OK] 54 limit_uint_fast64_max = -1 [OK]
If you're fine with it, I'll squash it into your patch.
Yes, please do so.
Fitting quote:
"I'm wondering how we managed to miss this one given the tests in place!"