Mercurial > hg > bitcoin
changeset 2731:bc9d81f89e3f draft
Add test case for CBigNum::setint64().
One of the test cases currently aborts when using gcc's flag -ftrapv, due to
negating an INT64_MIN int64 variable, which is an undefined operation.
This will be fixed in a subsequent commit.
author | Ricardo M. Correia <rcorreia@wizy.org> |
---|---|
date | Mon, 14 May 2012 21:15:27 +0200 |
parents | 08da9d05fd0b |
children | 07956769d72b |
files | src/test/bignum_tests.cpp |
diffstat | 1 files changed, 110 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) [+] |
line wrap: on
line diff
new file mode 100644 --- /dev/null +++ b/src/test/bignum_tests.cpp @@ -0,0 +1,110 @@ +#include <boost/test/unit_test.hpp> +#include <climits> + +#include "bignum.h" + +BOOST_AUTO_TEST_SUITE(bignum_tests) + + +// For the following test case, it is useful to use additional tools. +// +// The simplest one to use is the compiler flag -ftrapv, which detects integer +// overflows and similar errors. However, due to optimizations and compilers +// taking advantage of undefined behavior sometimes it may not actually detect +// anything. +// +// You can also use compiler-based stack protection to possibly detect possible +// stack buffer overruns. +// +// For more accurate diagnostics, you can use an undefined arithmetic operation +// detector such as the clang-based tool: +// +// "IOC: An Integer Overflow Checker for C/C++" +// +// Available at: http://embed.cs.utah.edu/ioc/ +// +// It might also be useful to use Google's AddressSanitizer to detect +// stack buffer overruns, which valgrind can't currently detect. + +// Let's force this code not to be inlined, in order to actually +// test a generic version of the function. This increases the chance +// that -ftrapv will detect overflows. +void mysetint64(CBigNum& num, int64 n) __attribute__((noinline)); + +void mysetint64(CBigNum& num, int64 n) +{ + num.setint64(n); +} + +// For each number, we do 2 tests: one with inline code, then we reset the +// value to 0, then the second one with a non-inlined function. +BOOST_AUTO_TEST_CASE(bignum_setint64) +{ + int64 n; + + { + n = 0; + CBigNum num(n); + BOOST_CHECK(num.ToString() == "0"); + num.setulong(0); + BOOST_CHECK(num.ToString() == "0"); + mysetint64(num, n); + BOOST_CHECK(num.ToString() == "0"); + } + { + n = 1; + CBigNum num(n); + BOOST_CHECK(num.ToString() == "1"); + num.setulong(0); + BOOST_CHECK(num.ToString() == "0"); + mysetint64(num, n); + BOOST_CHECK(num.ToString() == "1"); + } + { + n = -1; + CBigNum num(n); + BOOST_CHECK(num.ToString() == "-1"); + num.setulong(0); + BOOST_CHECK(num.ToString() == "0"); + mysetint64(num, n); + BOOST_CHECK(num.ToString() == "-1"); + } + { + n = 5; + CBigNum num(n); + BOOST_CHECK(num.ToString() == "5"); + num.setulong(0); + BOOST_CHECK(num.ToString() == "0"); + mysetint64(num, n); + BOOST_CHECK(num.ToString() == "5"); + } + { + n = -5; + CBigNum num(n); + BOOST_CHECK(num.ToString() == "-5"); + num.setulong(0); + BOOST_CHECK(num.ToString() == "0"); + mysetint64(num, n); + BOOST_CHECK(num.ToString() == "-5"); + } + { + n = LLONG_MIN; + CBigNum num(n); + BOOST_CHECK(num.ToString() == "-9223372036854775808"); + num.setulong(0); + BOOST_CHECK(num.ToString() == "0"); + mysetint64(num, n); + BOOST_CHECK(num.ToString() == "-9223372036854775808"); + } + { + n = LLONG_MAX; + CBigNum num(n); + BOOST_CHECK(num.ToString() == "9223372036854775807"); + num.setulong(0); + BOOST_CHECK(num.ToString() == "0"); + mysetint64(num, n); + BOOST_CHECK(num.ToString() == "9223372036854775807"); + } +} + +BOOST_AUTO_TEST_SUITE_END()