1
Fork 0
mirror of https://git.savannah.gnu.org/git/guile.git synced 2025-06-04 19:20:27 +02:00
guile/test-suite
Mark H Weaver 2e6e1933b4 equal?' and eqv?' are now equivalent for numbers
Change `equal?' to work like `eqv?' for numbers.
Previously they worked differently in some cases, e.g.
when comparing signed zeroes or NaNs.  For example,
(equal? 0.0 -0.0) returned #t but (eqv? 0.0 -0.0)
returned #f, and (equal? +nan.0 +nan.0) returned #f
but (eqv? +nan.0 +nan.0) returned #t.

* libguile/numbers.c (scm_real_equalp, scm_bigequal,
  scm_complex_equalp, scm_i_fraction_equalp): Move to eq.c.

* libguile/eq.c (scm_real_equalp): Compare flonums using
  real_eqv instead of ==, so that NaNs are now considered
  equal, and to distinguish signed zeroes.

  (scm_complex_equalp): Compare real and imaginary
  components using real_eqv instead of ==, so that NaNs are
  now considered equal, and to distinguish signed zeroes.

  (scm_bigequal): Use scm_i_bigcmp instead of duplicating it.

  (real_eqv): Test for NaNs using isnan(x) instead of
  (x != x), and use SCM_UNLIKELY for optimization.

  (scm_eqv_p): Use scm_bigequal, scm_real_equalp,
  scm_complex_equalp, and scm_i_fraction_equalp to compare
  numbers, instead of inline code.  Those predicates now do
  what scm_eqv_p formerly did internally.  Replace if
  statements with switch statements, as is done in
  scm_equal_p.  Remove useless code to check equality of
  fractions with different SCM_CELL_TYPEs; this was for a
  tentative "lazy reduction bit" which was never developed.

  (scm_eqv_p, scm_equal_p): Remove useless code to check
  equality between inexact reals and non-real complex numbers
  with zero imaginary part.  Such numbers do not exist,
  because the current code is careful to never create them.

* test-suite/tests/numbers.test: Add test cases for
  `eqv?' and `equal?'.  Change existing test case for
  `(equal? +nan.0 +nan.0)' to expect #t instead of #f.

* NEWS: Add NEWS entries.
2011-01-30 13:08:47 +01:00
..
lalr Add Boucher's lalr-scm' as the (system base lalr)' module. 2010-03-31 00:41:59 +02:00
standalone Build dlopenable modules with `-module'. 2010-12-07 23:13:19 +01:00
tests equal?' and eqv?' are now equivalent for numbers 2011-01-30 13:08:47 +01:00
vm add call-with-vm; remove thread-vm bits; remove vm-apply; engines settable. 2010-09-27 21:12:29 +02:00
ChangeLog-2008 Rename ChangeLog' files to ChangeLog-2008'. 2008-09-12 21:49:58 +02:00
guile-test make guile-test work without configuration 2010-12-07 13:21:00 +01:00
lib.scm Have `scm_getc' honor the port's conversion strategy. 2011-01-26 00:29:51 +01:00
Makefile.am Rewrite read-line' in terms of scm_getc'. 2011-01-26 00:29:51 +01:00
README Revert "Note need for subscription to bug-guile@gnu.org." 2008-12-10 19:07:14 +00:00

This directory contains some tests for Guile, and some generic test
support code.

To run these tests, you will need a version of Guile more recent than
15 Feb 1999 --- the tests use the (ice-9 and-let*) and (ice-9
getopt-long) modules, which were added to Guile around then.

For information about how to run the test suite, read the usage
instructions in the comments at the top of the guile-test script.

You can reference the file `lib.scm' from your own code as the module
(test-suite lib); it also has comments at the top and before each
function explaining what's going on.

Please write more Guile tests, and send them to bug-guile@gnu.org.
We'll merge them into the distribution.  All test suites must be
licensed for our use under the GPL, but I don't think I'm going to
collect assignment papers for them.



Some test suite philosophy:

GDB has an extensive test suite --- around 6300 tests.  Every time the
test suite catches a bug, it's great.

GDB is so complicated that folks are often unable to get a solid
understanding of the code before making a change --- we just don't
have time.  You'll see people say things like, "Here's a fix for X; it
doesn't cause any regressions."  The subtext is, I made a change that
looks reasonable, and the test suite didn't complain, so it must be
okay.

I think this is terrible, because it suggests that the writer is using
the test suite as a substitute for having a rock-solid explanation of
why their changes are correct.  The problem is that any test suite is
woefully incomplete.  Diligent reasoning about code can catch corner
conditions or limitations that no test suite will ever find.



Jim's rule for test suites:

Every test suite failure should be a complete, mysterious surprise,
never a possibility you were prepared for.  Any other attitude
indicates that you're using the test suite as a crutch, which you need
only because your understanding is weak.