On 26/12/2020 17:51, Luc Van Oostenryck wrote:
> Currently, packed bitfields are not handled correctly.
>
> Add some testcases for them.
>
> Signed-off-by: Luc Van Oostenryck <luc.vanoostenryck@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> validation/packed-bitfield0.c | 67 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> validation/packed-bitfield1.c | 28 +++++++++++++++
> validation/packed-bitfield2.c | 16 +++++++++
> validation/packed-bitfield3.c | 29 +++++++++++++++
> validation/packed-bitfield4.c | 19 ++++++++++
> validation/packed-bitfield5.c | 21 +++++++++++
> 6 files changed, 180 insertions(+)
> create mode 100644 validation/packed-bitfield0.c
> create mode 100644 validation/packed-bitfield1.c
> create mode 100644 validation/packed-bitfield2.c
> create mode 100644 validation/packed-bitfield3.c
> create mode 100644 validation/packed-bitfield4.c
> create mode 100644 validation/packed-bitfield5.c
>
> diff --git a/validation/packed-bitfield0.c b/validation/packed-bitfield0.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..907500dedbf0
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/validation/packed-bitfield0.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,67 @@
> +#define alignof(X) __alignof__(X)
> +#define __packed __attribute__((packed))
> +
> +struct sa {
> + int a:7;
> + int c:10;
> + int b:2;
> +} __packed;
> +_Static_assert(alignof(struct sa) == 1, "alignof(struct sa)");
> +_Static_assert( sizeof(struct sa) == 3, "sizeof(struct sa)");
> +
> +struct __packed sb {
> + int a:7;
> + int c:10;
> + int b:2;
> +};
> +_Static_assert(alignof(struct sb) == 1, "alignof(struct sb)");
> +_Static_assert( sizeof(struct sb) == 3, "sizeof(struct sb)");
Why 'struct sb'? It is not used in the rest of the test (and is
identical to 'struct sa').
> +
> +
> +static int get_size(void)
> +{
> + return sizeof(struct sa);
> +}
> +
> +static void chk_align(struct sa sa, struct sa *p)
> +{
> + _Static_assert(alignof(sa) == 1, "alignof(sa)");
> + _Static_assert(alignof(*p) == 1, "alignof(*p)");
> +}
> +
> +static int fp0(struct sa *sa)
> +{
> + return sa->c;
> +}
> +
> +static int fpx(struct sa *sa, int idx)
> +{
> + return sa[idx].c;
> +}
> +
> +static int fglobal(void)
> +{
> + extern struct sa g;
> + return g.c;
> +}
> +
> +static struct sa l;
> +static int flocal(void)
> +{
> + return l.c;
> +}
> +
> +
> +int main(void)
> +{
> + extern void fun(struct sa *);
> + struct sa sa = { 0 };
> +
> + fun(&sa);
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +/*
> + * check-name: packed-bitfield0
> + * check-known-to-fail
> + */
> diff --git a/validation/packed-bitfield1.c b/validation/packed-bitfield1.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..208a3dc5127c
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/validation/packed-bitfield1.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,28 @@
> +#define __packed __attribute__((packed))
> +
> +struct s {
> + unsigned int f0:1;
> + unsigned int f1:1;
> + unsigned int pad:6;
> +} __packed;
> +_Static_assert(sizeof(struct s) == 1, "sizeof(struct s)");
> +
> +extern struct s g;
> +
> +static int foo(struct s *ptr)
> +{
> + int f = 0;
> +
> + f += g.f0;
> + f += g.f1;
> +
> + f += ptr->f0;
> + f += ptr->f1;
> +
> + return f;
> +}
> +
> +/*
> + * check-name: packed-bitfield1
> + * check-known-to-fail
> + */
> diff --git a/validation/packed-bitfield2.c b/validation/packed-bitfield2.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..4587ebec5c90
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/validation/packed-bitfield2.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,16 @@
> +struct bf2 {
> + unsigned p1:2;
> + unsigned i1:32;
> + unsigned p2:2;
> + unsigned s9:9;
> + unsigned s9:9;
> + unsigned s9:9;
> + unsigned b1:1;
> +} __attribute__((packed));
> +
> +_Static_assert(sizeof(struct bf2) == 8);
> +
> +/*
> + * check-name: packed-bitfield2
> + * check-known-to-fail
> + */
> diff --git a/validation/packed-bitfield3.c b/validation/packed-bitfield3.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..6acff875299f
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/validation/packed-bitfield3.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,29 @@
> +#define __packed __attribute__((packed))
> +
> +typedef unsigned char u8;
> +typedef __UINT16_TYPE__ u16;
> +typedef __UINT32_TYPE__ u32;
> +typedef __UINT64_TYPE__ u64;
> +
> +struct b {
> + u32 a:1;
> + u32 b:2;
> + u32 c:4;
> + u32 d:8;
> + u32 e:16;
> +} __packed;
> +_Static_assert(__alignof(struct b) == 1);
> +_Static_assert( sizeof(struct b) == sizeof(u32));
Again '== sizeof(u32)' does not seem useful. (what is it
trying to say?)
> +
> +struct c {
> + u8 a;
> + u8 b;
> + u64 c:48;
> +} __packed;
> +_Static_assert(__alignof(struct c) == 1);
> +_Static_assert( sizeof(struct c) == sizeof(u64));
ditto.
ATB,
Ramsay Jones
> +
> +/*
> + * check-name: packed-bitfield3
> + * check-known-to-fail
> + */
> diff --git a/validation/packed-bitfield4.c b/validation/packed-bitfield4.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..0342b2414b6e
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/validation/packed-bitfield4.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
> +#define __packed __attribute__((packed))
> +
> +typedef __UINT32_TYPE__ u32;
> +
> +struct s {
> + u32 f:24;
> +} __packed;
> +_Static_assert(sizeof(struct s) == 3);
> +
> +static int ld(struct s *s)
> +{
> + return s->f;
> +}
> +
> +/*
> + * check-name: packed-bitfield4
> + * check-description: Is check_access() OK with short packed bitfields?
> + * check-known-to-fail
> + */
> diff --git a/validation/packed-bitfield5.c b/validation/packed-bitfield5.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..8f44d4c2c277
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/validation/packed-bitfield5.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
> +#define __packed __attribute__((packed))
> +
> +typedef __UINT32_TYPE__ u32;
> +
> +struct s {
> + u32 a:5;
> + u32 f:30;
> + u32 z:5;
> +} __packed;
> +_Static_assert(sizeof(struct s) == 5);
> +
> +static int ld(struct s *s)
> +{
> + return s->f;
> +}
> +
> +/*
> + * check-name: packed-bitfield5
> + * check-description: is check_access() OK with 'overlapping' packed bitfields?
> + * check-known-to-fail
> + */
>
