Re: [PATCH] Add arithmetic builtin functions

* Poke *

On Mon, Dec 9, 2024, 5:18 PM Pete Dietl <[email protected]> wrote:

> I could also use some help with autotools and the Perl test scripts <
> I am a novice at both :) >
>
> Here is a bit of test code I came up with. Do you think this is
> necessary and or the right approach for testing with extreme values of
> double and long long?
>
> From 4a6e84061fbf2180cf4efec45a215dd8af6481b1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Pete Dietl <[email protected]>
> Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2024 17:06:55 -0800
> Subject: [PATCH] arith_tests
>
> ---
>  configure.ac                | 34 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  tests/config-flags.pm.in    | 24 +++++++++++----------
>  tests/scripts/functions/add | 42 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  3 files changed, 89 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>  create mode 100644 tests/scripts/functions/add
>
> diff --git a/configure.ac b/configure.ac
> index d9abc0d2..7b27dc21 100644
> --- a/configure.ac
> +++ b/configure.ac
> @@ -555,6 +555,40 @@ AC_CONFIG_FILES([build.cfg tests/config-flags.pm \
>  # Put build.sh in the build directory so it's easy to find
>  AC_CONFIG_LINKS([build.sh:build.sh])
>
> +AC_MSG_CHECKING([for LLONG_MAX and LLONG_MIN values])
> +AC_LINK_IFELSE(
> +  [AC_LANG_PROGRAM(
> +[[
> +#include <limits.h>
> +#include <stdio.h>
> +]],
> +[[
> +#ifdef LLONG_MAX
> +    printf("%lld\n%lld\n", (long long)LLONG_MAX, (long long)LLONG_MIN);
> +    return 0;
> +#else
> +    return 1;
> +#endif
> +]]
> +  )],
> +  [ # Linking succeeded
> +    AC_MSG_RESULT([yes])
> +    LLVALS=`./conftest`
> +    rm -f conftest conftest.c
> +    LONG_LONG_INT_MAX=`echo "$LLVALS" | sed -n '1p'`
> +    LONG_LONG_INT_MIN=`echo "$LLVALS" | sed -n '2p'`
> +  ],
> +  [ # Linking failed
> +    AC_MSG_RESULT([no])
> +    LONG_LONG_INT_MAX=""
> +    LONG_LONG_INT_MIN=""
> +  ],
> +AC_MSG_ERROR([This must succeed])
> +)
> +
> +AC_SUBST([LONG_LONG_INT_MAX], [$LONG_LONG_INT_MAX])
> +AC_SUBST([LONG_LONG_INT_MIN], [$LONG_LONG_INT_MIN])
> +
>  # OK, do it!
>
>  AC_OUTPUT
> diff --git a/tests/config-flags.pm.in b/tests/config-flags.pm.in
> index 90cd9801..8e2a80f7 100644
> --- a/tests/config-flags.pm.in
> +++ b/tests/config-flags.pm.in
> @@ -4,17 +4,19 @@
>  # during the tests.
>
>  %CONFIG_FLAGS = (
> -    AM_LDFLAGS      => '@AM_LDFLAGS@',
> -    AR              => '@AR@',
> -    CC              => '@CC@',
> -    CFLAGS          => '@CFLAGS@',
> -    CPP             => '@CPP@',
> -    CPPFLAGS        => '@CPPFLAGS@',
> -    GUILE_CFLAGS    => '@GUILE_CFLAGS@',
> -    GUILE_LIBS      => '@GUILE_LIBS@',
> -    LDFLAGS         => '@LDFLAGS@',
> -    LIBS            => '@LIBS@',
> -    USE_SYSTEM_GLOB => '@USE_SYSTEM_GLOB@'
> +    AM_LDFLAGS        => '@AM_LDFLAGS@',
> +    AR                => '@AR@',
> +    CC                => '@CC@',
> +    CFLAGS            => '@CFLAGS@',
> +    CPP               => '@CPP@',
> +    CPPFLAGS          => '@CPPFLAGS@',
> +    GUILE_CFLAGS      => '@GUILE_CFLAGS@',
> +    GUILE_LIBS        => '@GUILE_LIBS@',
> +    LDFLAGS           => '@LDFLAGS@',
> +    LIBS              => '@LIBS@',
> +    USE_SYSTEM_GLOB   => '@USE_SYSTEM_GLOB@',
> +    LONG_LONG_INT_MAX => '@LONG_LONG_INT_MAX@',
> +    LONG_LONG_INT_MIN => '@LONG_LONG_INT_MIN@'
>  );
>
>  1;
> diff --git a/tests/scripts/functions/add b/tests/scripts/functions/add
> new file mode 100644
> index 00000000..3c5576f2
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/tests/scripts/functions/add
> @@ -0,0 +1,42 @@
> +#
> -*-perl-*-
> +
> +use Math::BigInt;
> +
> +$description = "Test the add function.\n";
> +
> +$details = "Try various uses of add and ensure they all give the correct
> +results.\n";
> +
> +
> +$llong_max = get_config('LONG_LONG_INT_MAX');
> +$llong_min = get_config('LONG_LONG_INT_MIN');
> +
> +run_make_test('# Identity
> +.RECIPEPREFIX = >
> +all:
> +> @echo 0_1 $(add 0)
> +> @echo 0_2 $(add 1)
> +> @echo 0_3 $(add -4)
> +> @echo 0_4 $(add ' . $llong_min . ')
> +> @echo 0_5 $(add ' . $llong_max . ')
> +', '', '0_1 0
> +0_2 1
> +0_3 -4
> +0_4 ' . $llong_min . '
> +0_5 ' . $llong_max . '
> +');
> +
> +run_make_test('# Positive addition
> +.RECIPEPREFIX = >
> +all:
> +> @echo 0_1 $(add 0,1)
> +> @echo 0_2 $(add 1,0)
> +> @echo 0_3 $(add 1, 2,   3,4)
> +> @echo 0_4 $(add ' . $llong_min . ',1)
> +', '', '0_1 1
> +0_2 1
> +0_3 10
> +0_4 ' . Math::BigInt->new($llong_min)->badd(1)->bstr() . '
> +');
> +
> +1;
> --
> 2.43.0
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 9, 2024 at 12:50 PM Paul Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 2024-12-09 at 01:49 -0800, Pete Dietl wrote:
> > > Mon, 9 Dec 2024 10:37:14 +0100, Jouke Witteveen wrote:
> > > > What I remember from the original thread is that we first needed a
> > > > good proposal. I'm afraid the existence of the implementation
> > > > suggested now sidesteps the discussion on what functionality is
> > > > actually desirable.
> > >
> > > Yeah I'm totally open to discussing a proposal further. I just felt
> > > like having some working prototype implemented would be useful.
> >
> > In my opinion the patch is a proposal.  If we decide it's best to do
> > something completely different, then that's what we'll do.  No doubt
> > whatever we decide the user interface should be, at least big chunks of
> > this code can be re-used anyway.  Hopefully this won't be a shock to
> > Pete :)
> >
> > I agree that the big open question from the previous discussion was,
> > multiple individual functions versus one function that accepts a "math
> > string".  And if the latter, what is the syntax of that string.  I
> > liked the idea of a single function, as it seems simpler to use, but
> > certainly it requires more decisions and discussion.
> >
> > > > I don't see the advantage in creating this special case.  If someone
> > > > wants the negation of a value, wouldn't they just write "-$V" instead
> > > > of "$(sub $V)"?
> > >
> > > This feels similar to many concerns raised in the original thread
> > > four years ago. In this particular case, "-$V" could result in two
> > > consecutive minus signs, which is probably not what we want.
> >
> > I'm not sure why not, as long as the code handles it (I don't think
> > this code does, admittedly).  Can't you just consider --5 to be the
> > same as -(-5), or 5, which is the same thing that $(sub -5) gives (I
> > think)?
> >
> > > personally I still think arithmetic operators may be too much feature
> > > creep altogether.
> >
> > I think I don't agree.  For one thing we already have the concept of
> > "numbers", because we provide the $(words ...) and, maybe less
> > convincingly, $(word ...) functions.  It's just that we can't really do
> > much with them yet.
> >
> > I get the instinct to keep the language "clean" but in the end, people
> > want to write build tools more than they want a clean language :).
> > Being able to do basic math without having to shell out (not portable)
> > or link with Guile or write some C code for a loadable module, doesn't
> > seem like we're going out too far on the ledge.
> >
>