diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'contrib/bc/Test/TESTS.bc')
| -rw-r--r-- | contrib/bc/Test/TESTS.bc | 565 |
1 files changed, 565 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/contrib/bc/Test/TESTS.bc b/contrib/bc/Test/TESTS.bc new file mode 100644 index 0000000..ec42172 --- /dev/null +++ b/contrib/bc/Test/TESTS.bc @@ -0,0 +1,565 @@ +From phil@cs.wwu.edu Mon Mar 20 23:13:22 1995 +Date: Mon, 20 Mar 1995 23:12:17 -0800 +From: Phil Nelson <phil@cs.wwu.edu> +To: phil@steelhead.cs.wwu.edu +Subject: [jhn@ironwood.cray.com: XPG4 bc(1) failures] + +From: jhn@ironwood.cray.com (James Nordby) +Subject: XPG4 bc(1) failures +To: phil@cs.wwu.edu +Date: Fri, 17 Mar 1995 12:14:13 -0600 (CST) +X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24-CRI-b] +Mime-Version: 1.0 +Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII +Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit +Content-Length: 14277 + + +Phil, + +Here are the test results I'm getting from the XPG4 test suite, +with some explanation and fixes so far. Let me know what you +think... + +Thanks much, +Jim Nordby (jhn@cray.com) + + +-------- bc 08:38:34 -------- + +Assertion #20 (A): bc reads text files +Expected exit code = 0; Received 139 +Standard output isn't the same as file 'bc_eso_20_1' +diff of "out.stdout" and "bc_eso_20_1": +*** out.stdout Fri Mar 17 08:39:22 1995 +--- bc_eso_20_1 Fri Mar 17 08:39:22 1995 +*************** +*** 0 **** +--- 1,31 ---- ++ 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 ++ 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 ++ 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 ++ 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 ++ 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 ++ 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 ++ 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 ++ 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 ++ 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 ++ 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 ++ 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 ++ 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 ++ 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 ++ 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 ++ 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 ++ 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 ++ 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 ++ 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 ++ 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 ++ 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 ++ 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 ++ 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 ++ 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 ++ 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 ++ 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 ++ 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 ++ 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 ++ 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 ++ 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 ++ 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 ++ 1111111 +Assertion Result: FAIL + +I couldn't reproduce this problem; when I rebuilt your bc and +ran it, I got a different problem with printing out a large +number. The XPG4 tests expected lines to be 70 characters +long, INCLUDING the newline (this comes from the POSIX definition +of a line). To fix it, I changed util.c like so: + +*** util.c Thu Mar 16 10:47:36 1995 +--- util.c.old Thu Mar 16 10:50:10 1995 +*************** +*** 309,323 **** + else + { + out_col++; +- #ifdef _CRAY +- /* +- * XPG4 considers a line to include the <newline>; +- * therefore we want 68 numerals, <backslash>, <newline> +- */ +- if (out_col == 69) +- #else + if (out_col == 70) +- #endif + { + putchar ('\\'); + putchar ('\n'); +--- 309,315 ---- + + + + + + +Assertion #42 (A): check reserved words +Standard error isn't empty +Contents of out.stderr: +(standard_in) 6: syntax error +(standard_in) 15: syntax error +Standard output isn't the same as file 'bc_eso_42_1' +diff of "out.stdout" and "bc_eso_42_1": +*** out.stdout Fri Mar 17 08:39:43 1995 +--- bc_eso_42_1 Fri Mar 17 08:39:43 1995 +*************** +*** 1,2 **** +--- 1,3 ---- + 2 + 1 ++ 0 +Assertion Result: FAIL + +This one is debatable, based on the grammar in the POSIX manual. +Here's the input file: + +cat << \VSC-EOF > input +define a() { + auto b; + for ( b = 0; b < 10; b++ ) { + b; + if ( b == 1 ) + break; + } + return ( 5 ) ; +} +ibase = 10; +length ( obase ); +scale = 0; +sqrt(1); +while ( a() != 5 ) +VSC-EOF + +They want these constructs to be accepted: + + +if (b == 1) + whatever; +for (x = 0; x < 10; x++) + whatever; +while (x < 10) + whatever; + +rather than just + +if (b == 1) { + whatever +} +etc. + +The grammar as it's currently worded requires a '{' before hitting +a NEWLINE for these constructs. It's easy enough to change in bc.y +(see below), but if I do change it, it still barfs on the last +line of the file ( 'while (a() != 5)' ). Since the while lacks +a body, it gives a syntax error; they're expecting a '0' to be +returned. The grammar could be changed to support this, but is +it a good idea? + + +*** bc.y Thu Mar 16 10:47:20 1995 +--- bc.y.old Thu Mar 16 10:50:11 1995 +*************** +*** 142,150 **** + | error statement + { $$ = $2; } + ; +- allow_newlines : /* empty */ +- | NEWLINE allow_newlines +- ; + statement : Warranty + { warranty (""); } + | Limits +--- 142,147 ---- +*************** +*** 231,237 **** + sprintf (genstr, "pJ%1d:N%1d:", $4, $7); + generate (genstr); + } +! allow_newlines statement + { + sprintf (genstr, "J%1d:N%1d:", + continue_label, break_label); +--- 228,234 ---- + sprintf (genstr, "pJ%1d:N%1d:", $4, $7); + generate (genstr); + } +! statement + { + sprintf (genstr, "J%1d:N%1d:", + continue_label, break_label); +*************** +*** 246,252 **** + sprintf (genstr, "Z%1d:", if_label); + generate (genstr); + } +! allow_newlines statement opt_else + { + sprintf (genstr, "N%1d:", if_label); + generate (genstr); +--- 243,249 ---- + sprintf (genstr, "Z%1d:", if_label); + generate (genstr); + } +! statement opt_else + { + sprintf (genstr, "N%1d:", if_label); + generate (genstr); +*************** +*** 265,271 **** + sprintf (genstr, "Z%1d:", break_label); + generate (genstr); + } +! ')' allow_newlines statement + { + sprintf (genstr, "J%1d:N%1d:", $1, break_label); + generate (genstr); +--- 262,268 ---- + sprintf (genstr, "Z%1d:", break_label); + generate (genstr); + } +! ')' statement + { + sprintf (genstr, "J%1d:N%1d:", $1, break_label); + generate (genstr); + + + + +Assertion #49 (A): check strings +Expected exit code = 0; Received 1 +Standard error isn't empty +Contents of out.stderr: +File (NULL) is unavailable. +Standard output isn't the same as file 'bc_eso_49_1' +diff of "out.stdout" and "bc_eso_49_1": +cmd-1794 diff: Missing newline at end of file 'bc_eso_49_1'. +*** out.stdout Fri Mar 17 08:40:01 1995 +--- bc_eso_49_1 Fri Mar 17 08:40:01 1995 +*************** +*** 0 **** +--- 1 ---- ++ aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa +*LINE CONTINUATION -aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa +*LINE CONTINUATION -aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa +Assertion Result: FAIL + +This gist of this is that the standard expects numbers to +be truncated to 70 characters, but STRINGS should not. +My changes to fix this are: + + +*** execute.c Thu Mar 16 13:06:39 1995 +--- execute.c.old Thu Mar 16 10:50:09 1995 +*************** +*** 208,218 **** + case 'O' : /* Write a string to the output with processing. */ + while ((ch = byte(&pc)) != '"') + if (ch != '\\') +- #ifdef _CRAY +- putchar (ch); +- #else + out_char (ch); +- #endif + else + { + ch = byte(&pc); +--- 207,213 ---- +*************** +*** 219,234 **** + if (ch == '"') break; + switch (ch) + { +- #ifdef _CRAY +- case 'a': putchar (007); break; +- case 'b': putchar ('\b'); break; +- case 'f': putchar ('\f'); break; +- case 'n': putchar ('\n'); break; +- case 'q': putchar ('"'); break; +- case 'r': putchar ('\r'); break; +- case 't': putchar ('\t'); break; +- case '\\': putchar ('\\'); break; +- #else + case 'a': out_char (007); break; + case 'b': out_char ('\b'); break; + case 'f': out_char ('\f'); break; +--- 214,219 ---- +*************** +*** 237,243 **** + case 'r': out_char ('\r'); break; + case 't': out_char ('\t'); break; + case '\\': out_char ('\\'); break; +- #endif + default: break; + } + } +--- 222,227 ---- +*************** +*** 350,360 **** + break; + + case 'w' : /* Write a string to the output. */ +- #ifdef _CRAY +- while ((ch = byte(&pc)) != '"') putchar (ch); +- #else + while ((ch = byte(&pc)) != '"') out_char (ch); +- #endif + if (interactive) fflush (stdout); + break; + + + + +Assertion #77 (C): output longer than 70 characters +Standard output isn't the same as file 'bc_eso_77_1' +diff of "out.stdout" and "bc_eso_77_1": +*** out.stdout Fri Mar 17 08:41:13 1995 +--- bc_eso_77_1 Fri Mar 17 08:41:13 1995 +*************** +*** 1,2 **** +! 3.3333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333 +! 33333333333333333333333333333333 +--- 1,2 ---- +! 3.333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333 +! 333333333333333333333333333333333 +Assertion Result: FAIL + +Same as assertion #20 above... + + + + +Assertion #92 (A): check % +Standard output isn't the same as file 'bc_eso_92_1' +diff of "out.stdout" and "bc_eso_92_1": +*** out.stdout Fri Mar 17 08:41:33 1995 +--- bc_eso_92_1 Fri Mar 17 08:41:33 1995 +*************** +*** 4,8 **** + 4 + 15 + 1 +! 0 +! 0 +--- 4,8 ---- + 4 + 15 + 1 +! 6 +! 5 +Assertion Result: FAIL + +This one is a pain. The failing code looks like this: + +scale = 4 +scale ( 5.000000 % 2.0 ) +scale ( 5.00 % 2.0 ) + +They expect '6' and '5' for output, instead of '0', based on +the explanation of the modulus operator ("scale of the result +shall be 'max(scale + scale(b), scale(a)'"), even though the +result is a 0. I was able to fix this problem by the change +below: + +*** number.c Thu Mar 16 13:15:43 1995 +--- number.c.old Thu Mar 16 10:50:09 1995 +*************** +*** 614,623 **** + case 0: + /* They are equal! return zero! */ + diff = copy_num (_zero_); +- #ifdef _CRAY +- /* correct the scale here */ +- diff->n_scale = MAX (n1->n_scale, n2->n_scale); +- #endif + break; + case 1: + /* n2 is less than n1, subtract n2 from n1. */ + +but this causes another test failure that I haven't looked at. + + + + +Assertion #130 (A): functions are call by value +Standard output isn't the same as file 'bc_eso_130_1' +diff of "out.stdout" and "bc_eso_130_1": +*** out.stdout Fri Mar 17 08:42:24 1995 +--- bc_eso_130_1 Fri Mar 17 08:42:24 1995 +*************** +*** 4,10 **** + 5 + 4 + 0 +! 4 + 3 + 3 + 5 +--- 4,10 ---- + 5 + 4 + 0 +! 5 + 3 + 3 + 5 +Assertion Result: FAIL + +Assertion #131 (A): functions are call by value +Standard output isn't the same as file 'bc_eso_131_1' +diff of "out.stdout" and "bc_eso_131_1": +*** out.stdout Fri Mar 17 08:42:28 1995 +--- bc_eso_131_1 Fri Mar 17 08:42:28 1995 +*************** +*** 4,10 **** + 5 + 4 + 0 +! 4 + 3 + 3 + 5 +--- 4,10 ---- + 5 + 4 + 0 +! 5 + 3 + 3 + 5 +Assertion Result: FAIL + + +Both of these are the 'arrays are passed by value' problem. +One of the test cases is below: + +cat << \VSC-EOF > bc_in_130_1 +a[0] = 3 +a[0] +define b(a[]) { +a[0] +a[0] = 4 +a[0] +} +a[0] +a[0] = 5 +a[0] +b(a[]) +a[0] +VSC-EOF + +They expect the assignment of a[0] inside the b() function +to not affect a[0] outside of the function. + + + + + +Assertion #139 (A): check sin +Standard output isn't the same as file 'bc_eso_139_1' +diff of "out.stdout" and "bc_eso_139_1": +*** out.stdout Fri Mar 17 08:42:40 1995 +--- bc_eso_139_1 Fri Mar 17 08:42:39 1995 +*************** +*** 1,5 **** + 0 +! 20 + 1.68294196961579301330 + 20 + 1.6829419696 +--- 1,5 ---- + 0 +! 0 + 1.68294196961579301330 + 20 + 1.6829419696 +Assertion Result: FAIL + +Assertion #141 (A): check arctanngent +Standard output isn't the same as file 'bc_eso_141_1' +diff of "out.stdout" and "bc_eso_141_1": +*** out.stdout Fri Mar 17 08:42:44 1995 +--- bc_eso_141_1 Fri Mar 17 08:42:44 1995 +*************** +*** 1,5 **** + 0 +! 20 + 3.14159265358979323844 + 20 + 3.1415926532 +--- 1,5 ---- + 0 +! 0 + 3.14159265358979323844 + 20 + 3.1415926532 +Assertion Result: FAIL + +Assertion #142 (A): check log +Standard output isn't the same as file 'bc_eso_142_1' +diff of "out.stdout" and "bc_eso_142_1": +*** out.stdout Fri Mar 17 08:42:47 1995 +--- bc_eso_142_1 Fri Mar 17 08:42:47 1995 +*************** +*** 1,5 **** + 0 +! 20 + 2.30258509299404568401 + 20 + 2.3025850929 +--- 1,5 ---- + 0 +! 0 + 2.30258509299404568401 + 20 + 2.3025850929 +Assertion Result: FAIL + +Assertion #144 (A): check bessel +Standard output isn't the same as file 'bc_eso_144_1' +diff of "out.stdout" and "bc_eso_144_1": +*** out.stdout Fri Mar 17 08:42:51 1995 +--- bc_eso_144_1 Fri Mar 17 08:42:51 1995 +*************** +*** 1,5 **** + 0 +! 20 + .57672480775687338720 + 20 + .5767248077 +--- 1,5 ---- + 0 +! 0 + .57672480775687338720 + 20 + .5767248077 +Assertion Result: FAIL + +All of these are the same. I'll give you the test case +for 'sin'; what they're expecting is 0: + +scale(s(0)) + +bc outputs '20' (which is the scale at the time), but the +interpretation of the standard says that it should be '0', +since s(0) is 0, and the scale of 0 is 0. I think that +this interpretation disagrees with one of the previous +assertions (assertion #92). + +/* end of test results */ + + + +-- +Phil Nelson +e-mail: phil@cs.wwu.edu +http://www.cs.wwu.edu/~phil + + |
