summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/gnu/usr.bin/bc/Test/TESTS.bc
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
Diffstat (limited to 'gnu/usr.bin/bc/Test/TESTS.bc')
-rw-r--r--gnu/usr.bin/bc/Test/TESTS.bc565
1 files changed, 565 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/gnu/usr.bin/bc/Test/TESTS.bc b/gnu/usr.bin/bc/Test/TESTS.bc
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..ec42172a422
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gnu/usr.bin/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
+
+
generated by cgit v1.2.3 (git 2.25.1) at 2024-12-12 07:25:00 +0000