On 2025-08-04 12:33, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 04.08.2025 12:42, Matthieu Longo wrote:
On 2025-08-04 11:33, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Matthieu Longo <matthieu.lo...@arm.com> writes:
On 2025-07-31 13:39, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 09.07.2025 14:48, Matthieu Longo wrote:
Those methods's implementation is relying on duck-typing at compile
time.
The structure corresponding to the node of a doubly linked list needs
to define attributes 'prev' and 'next' which are pointers on the type
of a node.
The structure wrapping the nodes and others metadata (first, last, size)
needs to define pointers 'first', and 'last' of the node's type, and
an integer type for 'size'.
Mutative methods can be bundled together and be declarable once via a
same macro, or can be declared separately. The merge sort is bundled
separately.
There are 3 types of macros:
1. for the declaration of prototypes: to use in a header file for a
public declaration, or as a forward declaration in the source file
for private declaration.
2. for the declaration of the implementation: to use always in a
source file.
3. for the invocation of the functions.
The methods can be declared either public or private via the second
argument of the declaration macros.
List of currently implemented methods:
- LINKED_LIST_*:
- APPEND: insert a node at the end of the list.
- PREPEND: insert a node at the beginning of the list.
- INSERT_BEFORE: insert a node before the given node.
- POP_FRONT: remove the first node of the list.
- POP_BACK: remove the last node of the list.
- REMOVE: remove the given node from the list.
- SWAP: swap the two given nodes in the list.
- LINKED_LIST_MERGE_SORT: a merge sort implementation.
---
include/doubly-linked-list.h | 447 ++++++++++++++++++
libiberty/Makefile.in | 1 +
libiberty/testsuite/Makefile.in | 12 +-
libiberty/testsuite/test-doubly-linked-list.c | 269 +++++++++++
4 files changed, 728 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
create mode 100644 include/doubly-linked-list.h
create mode 100644 libiberty/testsuite/test-doubly-linked-list.c
This new testing is what I suspect to have added significant clutter to
binutils 2.45 (i.e. it made it into a release this way) "make check"
output: Everything is clean and homogeneous from
PASS: test-buildargv-0.
PASS: test-expandargv-0.
PASS: test-buildargv-1.
PASS: test-expandargv-1.
throughout
PASS: test-strtol-18.
PASS: test-strtol-19.
PASS: test-strtol-20.
but then one gets
10 4 3 1 9 2
PASS: test-linked-list::append: check forward conformity
2 9 1 3 4 10
PASS: test-linked-list::append: check backward conformity
1 2 3 4 9 10
PASS: test-linked-list::sort: check forward conformity
10 9 4 3 2 1
PASS: test-linked-list::sort: check backward conformity
11 1 2 3 4 9 10
PASS: test-linked-list::prepend: check forward conformity
10 9 4 3 2 1 11
PASS: test-linked-list::prepend: check backward conformity
11 1 2 3 4 9 8 10
PASS: test-linked-list::insert_before: check forward conformity
10 8 9 4 3 2 1 11
PASS: test-linked-list::insert_before: check backward conformity
11 2 3 4 9 8 10
PASS: test-linked-list::remove: check forward conformity
10 8 9 4 3 2 11
PASS: test-linked-list::remove: check backward conformity
10 2 3 4 9 8 11
PASS: test-linked-list::swap first and last: check forward conformity
11 8 9 4 3 2 10
PASS: test-linked-list::swap first and last: check backward conformity
10 3 2 4 9 8 11
PASS: test-linked-list::swap adjacent nodes: check forward conformity
11 8 9 4 2 3 10
PASS: test-linked-list::swap adjacent nodes: check backward conformity
10 9 2 4 3 8 11
PASS: test-linked-list::swap non-adjacent nodes: check forward conformity
11 8 3 4 2 9 10
PASS: test-linked-list::swap non-adjacent nodes: check backward conformity
2 3 4 8 9 10 11
PASS: test-linked-list::sort: check forward conformity
11 10 9 8 4 3 2
PASS: test-linked-list::sort: check backward conformity
3 4 8 9 10 11
PASS: test-linked-list::pop_front: check forward conformity
11 10 9 8 4 3
PASS: test-linked-list::pop_front: check backward conformity
3 4 8 9 10
PASS: test-linked-list::pop_back: check forward conformity
10 9 8 4 3
PASS: test-linked-list::pop_back: check backward conformity
All the output besides the PASS: lines made me first think something went
wrong. And imo only the PASS: (or FAIL:) lines should appear on stdout.
Everything else should go to log files, just like other testing does.
Jan
Hi Jan,
Indeed those lines are making the output too verbose.
What do you think of the following patch ?
If you are happy with it, I will publish it to the GCC mailing list at
first, and then will sync libiberty from binutils with GCC's one once it
is merged.
Matthieu
Author: Matthieu Longo <matthieu.lo...@arm.com>
Date: Mon Aug 4 11:04:13 2025 +0100
libiberty: disable logging of list content for doubly-linked list tests
When the doubly-linked list tests were introduced, the tests were
printing the content of the list forward and backward. However, this
printing is not needed outside of debugging, and confuses people
because
the output is not only composed of PASS: lines.
This patch disables the printing of the list content by default. If
one wants to re-enable it for debugging, he can set the macro DUMP_LIST
to 1.
diff --git a/libiberty/testsuite/test-doubly-linked-list.c
b/libiberty/testsuite/test-doubly-linked-list.c
index 1e1fc637653..520463701e7 100644
--- a/libiberty/testsuite/test-doubly-linked-list.c
+++ b/libiberty/testsuite/test-doubly-linked-list.c
@@ -155,19 +155,27 @@ bool check(const char *op,
bool success = true;
bool res;
+#define DUMP_LIST 0
+
+#if DUMP_LIST
l_print (wrapper->first);
+#endif
res = run_test (expect, wrapper, false);
printf ("%s: test-linked-list::%s: check forward conformity\n",
res ? "PASS": "FAIL", op);
success &= res;
+#if DUMP_LIST
l_reverse_print (wrapper->last);
+#endif
res = run_test (expect, wrapper, true);
printf ("%s: test-linked-list::%s: check backward conformity\n",
res ? "PASS": "FAIL", op);
success &= res;
+#if DUMP_LIST
printf("\n");
+#endif
Pre-approved for GCC with:
if (DUMP_LIST)
in place of the #ifdef/#endifs.
Thanks,
Richard
return success;
}
Thanks Richard for the quick review :)
Just to confirm my understanding of your suggestion, you prefer to avoid
#if/#endif in the code and let the compiler prune the code depending on
the constant value of the condition. Is it correct ?
Here below is the modified version.
Fine with me as well, thanks. Also okay to then put on the 2.45 branch.
Jan
FYI I updated libiberty with the fix in binutils's master and
binutils-2_45-branch.
Matthieu
--- a/libiberty/testsuite/test-doubly-linked-list.c
+++ b/libiberty/testsuite/test-doubly-linked-list.c
@@ -155,19 +155,26 @@ bool check(const char *op,
bool success = true;
bool res;
- l_print (wrapper->first);
+#define DUMP_LIST 0
+
+ if (DUMP_LIST)
+ l_print (wrapper->first);
+
res = run_test (expect, wrapper, false);
printf ("%s: test-linked-list::%s: check forward conformity\n",
res ? "PASS": "FAIL", op);
success &= res;
- l_reverse_print (wrapper->last);
+ if (DUMP_LIST)
+ l_reverse_print (wrapper->last);
+
res = run_test (expect, wrapper, true);
printf ("%s: test-linked-list::%s: check backward conformity\n",
res ? "PASS": "FAIL", op);
success &= res;
- printf("\n");
+ if (DUMP_LIST)
+ printf("\n");
return success;
}
