Build+test bn_mp_set_double.c on more platforms #476

minad · 2020-02-17T23:01:20Z

Not all platforms/environments/architectures that support enough of
IEEE 754 for the purposes of mp_set_double() actually support enough
to legitimately define STDC_IEC_559, so only relying on that is
too strict. Fixes #159

Not all platforms/environments/architectures that support enough of IEEE 754 for the purposes of mp_set_double() actually support enough to legitimately define __STDC_IEC_559__, so only relying on that is too strict. Fixes #159

sjaeckel

thx

sjaeckel · 2020-02-18T08:38:55Z

mp_set_double.c

@@ -3,7 +3,7 @@
 /* LibTomMath, multiple-precision integer library -- Tom St Denis */
 /* SPDX-License-Identifier: Unlicense */

-#if defined(__STDC_IEC_559__) || defined(__GCC_IEC_559)
+#if defined(__STDC_IEC_559__) || defined(__GCC_IEC_559) || defined(__x86_64__) || defined(_M_X64) || defined(_M_AMD64) || defined(__i386__) || defined(_M_X86) || defined(__aarch64__) || defined(__arm__)


maybe have this in tommath_private.h instead?

#if defined(__STDC_IEC_559__) || defined(__GCC_IEC_559) || defined(__x86_64__) || defined(_M_X64) || defined(_M_AMD64) || defined(__i386__) || defined(_M_X86) || defined(__aarch64__) || defined(__arm__) #define MP_HAS_SET_DOUBLE

and check for MP_HAS_SET_DOUBLE?

sjaeckel · 2020-02-18T08:45:18Z

after fixing the build this should be fine...

minad · 2020-02-19T03:17:50Z

after fixing the build this should be fine...

Why is the build suddenly failing?

sjaeckel · 2020-02-19T09:31:11Z

I guess build30866717.log:335 says it all ;-)

MasterDuke17 · 2020-02-19T18:55:33Z

I don't get divide by zero errors, but git checkout develop && git pull upstream develop && make test && ./test does have two fails: test_mp_radix_size, line 1843: EXPECT(size == results[radix]) failed and test_s_mp_radix_size_overestimate, line 1989: EXPECT(size >= size2) failed

czurnieden · 2020-02-19T20:21:27Z

[…] two fails: test_mp_radix_size, line 1843: EXPECT(size == results[radix]) failed and test_s_mp_radix_size_overestimate, line 1989: EXPECT(size >= size2) failed

(Ow, that's my part)

Cannot repeat.
Can you get more details out of it, please?

MasterDuke17 · 2020-02-19T20:53:35Z

Adding some fprintfs:

diff --git a/demo/test.c b/demo/test.c
index 998f14b..66a9635 100644
--- a/demo/test.c
+++ b/demo/test.c
@@ -1338,6 +1338,7 @@ static int test_mp_log_n(void)
       DO(s_rs(&a,(int)base, &size));
       /* radix_size includes the memory needed for '\0', too*/
       size -= 2;
+      fprintf(stderr, "lb = %i, size = %i\n", lb, size);
       EXPECT(lb == size);
    }
 
@@ -1350,6 +1351,7 @@ static int test_mp_log_n(void)
       DO(mp_log_n(&a, base, &lb));
       DO(s_rs(&a,(int)base, &size));
       size -= 2;
+      fprintf(stderr, "lb = %i, size = %i\n", lb, size);
       EXPECT(lb == size);
    }
 
@@ -1840,9 +1842,11 @@ static int test_mp_radix_size(void)
 
    for (radix = 2; radix < 65; radix++) {
       DO(mp_radix_size(&a, radix, &size));
+      fprintf(stderr, "size = %li, results[radix] = %li\n", size, results[radix]);
       EXPECT(size == results[radix]);
       a.sign = MP_NEG;
       DO(mp_radix_size(&a, radix, &size));
+      fprintf(stderr, "size = %li, results[radix] + 1 = %li\n", size, results[radix] + 1);
       EXPECT(size == (results[radix] + 1));
       a.sign = MP_ZPOS;
    }
@@ -1970,10 +1974,12 @@ static int test_s_mp_radix_size_overestimate(void)
 
    for (radix = 2; radix < 65; radix++) {
       DO(s_mp_radix_size_overestimate(&a, radix, &size));
+      fprintf(stderr, "size = %lu, results[radix] = %lu\n", size, results[radix]);
       EXPECT(size >= results[radix]);
       EXPECT(size < results[radix] + 20); /* some error bound */
       a.sign = MP_NEG;
       DO(s_mp_radix_size_overestimate(&a, radix, &size));
+      fprintf(stderr, "size = %lu, results[radix] = %lu\n", size, results[radix]);
       EXPECT(size >= results[radix]);
       EXPECT(size < results[radix] + 20); /* some error bound */
       a.sign = MP_ZPOS;
@@ -1986,11 +1992,13 @@ static int test_s_mp_radix_size_overestimate(void)
       for (radix = 2; radix < 65; radix++) {
          DO(s_mp_radix_size_overestimate(&a, radix, &size));
          DO(mp_radix_size(&a, radix, &size2));
+      fprintf(stderr, "size = %li, size2 = %li\n", size, size2);
          EXPECT(size >= size2);
          EXPECT(size < size2 + 20); /* some error bound */
          a.sign = MP_NEG;
          DO(s_mp_radix_size_overestimate(&a, radix, &size));
          DO(mp_radix_size(&a, radix, &size2));
+      fprintf(stderr, "size = %li, size2 = %li\n", size, size2);
          EXPECT(size >= size2);
          EXPECT(size < size2 + 20); /* some error bound */
          a.sign = MP_ZPOS;

gives

TEST mp_radix_size
size = 140045998622299, results[radix] = 1627
test_mp_radix_size, line 1846: EXPECT(size == results[radix]) failed


FAIL mp_radix_size

TEST s_mp_radix_size_overestimate
size = 1628, results[radix] = 1627
size = 1628, results[radix] = 1627
size = 1028, results[radix] = 1027
size = 1028, results[radix] = 1027
size = 815, results[radix] = 814
size = 815, results[radix] = 814
size = 703, results[radix] = 702
size = 703, results[radix] = 702
size = 632, results[radix] = 630
size = 632, results[radix] = 630
size = 582, results[radix] = 581
size = 582, results[radix] = 581
size = 544, results[radix] = 543
size = 544, results[radix] = 543
size = 515, results[radix] = 514
size = 515, results[radix] = 514
size = 492, results[radix] = 491
size = 492, results[radix] = 491
size = 473, results[radix] = 471
size = 473, results[radix] = 471
size = 456, results[radix] = 455
size = 456, results[radix] = 455
size = 442, results[radix] = 441
size = 442, results[radix] = 441
size = 430, results[radix] = 428
size = 430, results[radix] = 428
size = 419, results[radix] = 418
size = 419, results[radix] = 418
size = 409, results[radix] = 408
size = 409, results[radix] = 408
size = 400, results[radix] = 399
size = 400, results[radix] = 399
size = 392, results[radix] = 391
size = 392, results[radix] = 391
size = 385, results[radix] = 384
size = 385, results[radix] = 384
size = 379, results[radix] = 378
size = 379, results[radix] = 378
size = 373, results[radix] = 372
size = 373, results[radix] = 372
size = 367, results[radix] = 366
size = 367, results[radix] = 366
size = 362, results[radix] = 361
size = 362, results[radix] = 361
size = 357, results[radix] = 356
size = 357, results[radix] = 356
size = 353, results[radix] = 352
size = 353, results[radix] = 352
size = 348, results[radix] = 347
size = 348, results[radix] = 347
size = 344, results[radix] = 343
size = 344, results[radix] = 343
size = 341, results[radix] = 340
size = 341, results[radix] = 340
size = 337, results[radix] = 336
size = 337, results[radix] = 336
size = 334, results[radix] = 333
size = 334, results[radix] = 333
size = 331, results[radix] = 330
size = 331, results[radix] = 330
size = 328, results[radix] = 327
size = 328, results[radix] = 327
size = 325, results[radix] = 324
size = 325, results[radix] = 324
size = 322, results[radix] = 321
size = 322, results[radix] = 321
size = 320, results[radix] = 318
size = 320, results[radix] = 318
size = 317, results[radix] = 316
size = 317, results[radix] = 316
size = 315, results[radix] = 314
size = 315, results[radix] = 314
size = 312, results[radix] = 311
size = 312, results[radix] = 311
size = 310, results[radix] = 309
size = 310, results[radix] = 309
size = 308, results[radix] = 307
size = 308, results[radix] = 307
size = 306, results[radix] = 305
size = 306, results[radix] = 305
size = 304, results[radix] = 303
size = 304, results[radix] = 303
size = 302, results[radix] = 301
size = 302, results[radix] = 301
size = 300, results[radix] = 299
size = 300, results[radix] = 299
size = 299, results[radix] = 298
size = 299, results[radix] = 298
size = 297, results[radix] = 296
size = 297, results[radix] = 296
size = 295, results[radix] = 294
size = 295, results[radix] = 294
size = 294, results[radix] = 293
size = 294, results[radix] = 293
size = 292, results[radix] = 291
size = 292, results[radix] = 291
size = 291, results[radix] = 290
size = 291, results[radix] = 290
size = 289, results[radix] = 288
size = 289, results[radix] = 288
size = 288, results[radix] = 287
size = 288, results[radix] = 287
size = 286, results[radix] = 285
size = 286, results[radix] = 285
size = 285, results[radix] = 284
size = 285, results[radix] = 284
size = 284, results[radix] = 283
size = 284, results[radix] = 283
size = 282, results[radix] = 281
size = 282, results[radix] = 281
size = 281, results[radix] = 280
size = 281, results[radix] = 280
size = 280, results[radix] = 279
size = 280, results[radix] = 279
size = 279, results[radix] = 278
size = 279, results[radix] = 278
size = 278, results[radix] = 277
size = 278, results[radix] = 277
size = 277, results[radix] = 276
size = 277, results[radix] = 276
size = 276, results[radix] = 275
size = 276, results[radix] = 275
size = 275, results[radix] = 273
size = 275, results[radix] = 273
size = 273, results[radix] = 272
size = 273, results[radix] = 272
size = 54, size2 = 140045998620725
test_s_mp_radix_size_overestimate, line 1996: EXPECT(size >= size2) failed


FAIL s_mp_radix_size_overestimate

czurnieden · 2020-02-19T21:31:06Z

Mmh…interesting.
(BTW: the type for the sizes is size_t and the length modifier for size_t for printf is z, so please use %zu next time, if you don't mind. Although I doubt that the exact values would matter in this case.)

It seems as if the calculation for powers of two failed here. (Or more? Could you do me a favour and comment out the exit-on-failure parts and print the actual radix, too, please?)
Who wrote s_mp_log_2expt.c?

czurnieden ~/GITHUB/libtommath O (develop)$ git blame s_mp_log_2expt.c
f6a7bedb (Daniel Mendler 2019-10-29 20:52:29 +0100  1) #include "tommath_private.h"
f6a7bedb (Daniel Mendler 2019-10-29 20:52:29 +0100  2) #ifdef S_MP_LOG_2EXPT_C
f6a7bedb (Daniel Mendler 2019-10-29 20:52:29 +0100  3) /* LibTomMath, multiple-precision integer library -- Tom St Denis */
f6a7bedb (Daniel Mendler 2019-10-29 20:52:29 +0100  4) /* SPDX-License-Identifier: Unlicense */
f6a7bedb (Daniel Mendler 2019-10-29 20:52:29 +0100  5) 
f6a7bedb (Daniel Mendler 2019-10-29 20:52:29 +0100  6) int s_mp_log_2expt(const mp_int *a, mp_digit base)
f6a7bedb (Daniel Mendler 2019-10-29 20:52:29 +0100  7) {
f6a7bedb (Daniel Mendler 2019-10-29 20:52:29 +0100  8)    int y;
f6a7bedb (Daniel Mendler 2019-10-29 20:52:29 +0100  9)    for (y = 0; (base & 1) == 0; y++, base >>= 1) {}
f6a7bedb (Daniel Mendler 2019-10-29 20:52:29 +0100 10)    return (mp_count_bits(a) - 1) / y;
f6a7bedb (Daniel Mendler 2019-10-29 20:52:29 +0100 11) }
f6a7bedb (Daniel Mendler 2019-10-29 20:52:29 +0100 12) #endif

Oh, not me? Phew! ;-)

But lame jokes aside: that's a really curious one. An uninitialized value somewhere (it worked the second time with the same number and base)? Compiler optimization gone too wild?

Can you try a different compiler/optimization?

I know I'm a bit demanding here, but as I cannot repeat it, I'm restricted to poking around in the hope to get bitten at some point and be able to analyse the venom.

Mmh…interesting, indeed.

minad · 2020-02-19T21:37:16Z

@czurnieden thanks for looking into this! Uninitialized values should be caught by the compiler statically and if not, then by valgrind. I find it weird that this problem suddenly came up. Maybe git bisect could help?

czurnieden · 2020-02-19T22:17:01Z

@czurnieden thanks for looking into this!

Well, I have to, it's (mainly) my code!

Uninitialized values should be caught by the compiler statically and if not, then by valgrind.

Yepp, most likely, but as I said: I'm poking in the dark here, cannot assume anything and static/dynamic analysing can fail, too.

Maybe git bisect could help?

We haven't changed much in the last couple of commits, so yes, that could be helpful.

@MasterDuke17 please find a commit in develop that worked for you. You don't have to try all, just guess a date and choose a commit or two before that date and use git bisect with the start´, good, and bad` commands to find the last working version as described at https://git-scm.com/docs/git-bisect (even I understood it and that says something ;-) )
Thank you very much for your patience!

MasterDuke17 · 2020-02-19T22:31:19Z

Hm, I just tried again with both clang version 9.0.1 and gcc (Arch Linux 9.2.1+20200130-2) 9.2.1 20200130 and it doesn't repro after doing a make clean, in fact there are no failures.

MasterDuke17 · 2020-02-19T22:56:23Z

And no complaints from valgrind after building with each compiler.

czurnieden · 2020-02-19T22:56:35Z

it doesn't repro after doing a make clean, in fact there are no failures.

Ow, you're killing me! ;-)

Nuh, doesn't really matter, shit happens.

sjaeckel · 2020-02-20T17:50:09Z

@MasterDuke17 can you please do a git fetch upstream && git checkout -b fix-double-check upstream/fix-double-check && make clean && make check

MasterDuke17 · 2020-02-20T22:21:57Z

@MasterDuke17 can you please do a git fetch upstream && git checkout -b fix-double-check upstream/fix-double-check && make clean && make check

Works just fine with gcc and clang, no errors.

sjaeckel · 2020-02-20T22:56:20Z

And with MSVC?

MasterDuke17 · 2020-02-21T14:32:24Z

And with MSVC?

Dunno, I don't have a windows machine to test on.

Reported by: Sébastien Santoro <dereckson@espace-win.org> Obtained from: libtom/libtommath#476

See: libtom/libtommath#159 See: libtom/libtommath#476

chenrui333 · 2024-03-27T16:35:44Z

any ideas about when this change can be released out (did not see in 1.3.0 release tarball)

sjaeckel · 2024-03-28T14:30:51Z

Yeah, I missed this change :-\

Give a few days for other issues to maybe pop up and I'll make a 1.3.1.

sjaeckel · 2024-04-16T09:54:36Z

@chenrui333 can you please check whether https://github.com/libtom/libtommath/releases/tag/v1.3.1-rc1 fixes this for you?

Build+test bn_mp_set_double.c on more platforms

4e90f31

Not all platforms/environments/architectures that support enough of IEEE 754 for the purposes of mp_set_double() actually support enough to legitimately define __STDC_IEC_559__, so only relying on that is too strict. Fixes #159

minad requested a review from sjaeckel February 17, 2020 23:01

This was referenced Feb 17, 2020

bn_mp_set_double.c does not compile under MacOS plus #159

Closed

new version v1.x #418

Closed

sjaeckel approved these changes Feb 18, 2020

View reviewed changes

sjaeckel force-pushed the fix-double-check branch 2 times, most recently from 75e7cb6 to 68ce8c1 Compare March 5, 2020 13:05

fix compile error on MSVC

c5cb0c6

sjaeckel force-pushed the fix-double-check branch from 68ce8c1 to aa02bc6 Compare March 5, 2020 13:11

introduce MP_HAS_SET_DOUBLE

c1cf807

sjaeckel force-pushed the fix-double-check branch from aa02bc6 to c1cf807 Compare March 5, 2020 13:12

sjaeckel merged commit ce4e6ae into develop Mar 5, 2020

sjaeckel deleted the fix-double-check branch March 5, 2020 13:25

czurnieden mentioned this pull request Mar 13, 2020

master (v.1.1.0) vs develop (3/12/2020) #479

Closed

rozhuk-im pushed a commit to rozhuk-im/freebsd-ports that referenced this pull request Sep 20, 2021

math/libtommath: enable mp_set_double

3b74b34

Reported by: Sébastien Santoro <dereckson@espace-win.org> Obtained from: libtom/libtommath#476

evanmiller added a commit to evanmiller/macports-ports that referenced this pull request Mar 23, 2022

libtommath: fix build error with MoarVM

7301ecc

See: libtom/libtommath#159 See: libtom/libtommath#476

evanmiller mentioned this pull request Mar 23, 2022

libtommath: fix build error with MoarVM macports/macports-ports#14336

Merged

11 tasks

mascguy pushed a commit to macports/macports-ports that referenced this pull request Mar 25, 2022

libtommath: fix build error with MoarVM

1cea9aa

See: libtom/libtommath#159 See: libtom/libtommath#476

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Build+test bn_mp_set_double.c on more platforms #476

Build+test bn_mp_set_double.c on more platforms #476

minad commented Feb 17, 2020

sjaeckel left a comment

sjaeckel Feb 18, 2020

sjaeckel commented Feb 18, 2020

minad commented Feb 19, 2020

sjaeckel commented Feb 19, 2020

MasterDuke17 commented Feb 19, 2020

czurnieden commented Feb 19, 2020

MasterDuke17 commented Feb 19, 2020

czurnieden commented Feb 19, 2020

minad commented Feb 19, 2020

czurnieden commented Feb 19, 2020

MasterDuke17 commented Feb 19, 2020

MasterDuke17 commented Feb 19, 2020

czurnieden commented Feb 19, 2020

sjaeckel commented Feb 20, 2020

MasterDuke17 commented Feb 20, 2020

sjaeckel commented Feb 20, 2020

MasterDuke17 commented Feb 21, 2020

chenrui333 commented Mar 27, 2024

sjaeckel commented Mar 28, 2024

sjaeckel commented Apr 16, 2024

Build+test bn_mp_set_double.c on more platforms #476

Build+test bn_mp_set_double.c on more platforms #476

Conversation

minad commented Feb 17, 2020

sjaeckel left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

sjaeckel Feb 18, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

sjaeckel commented Feb 18, 2020

minad commented Feb 19, 2020

sjaeckel commented Feb 19, 2020

MasterDuke17 commented Feb 19, 2020

czurnieden commented Feb 19, 2020

MasterDuke17 commented Feb 19, 2020

czurnieden commented Feb 19, 2020

minad commented Feb 19, 2020

czurnieden commented Feb 19, 2020

MasterDuke17 commented Feb 19, 2020

MasterDuke17 commented Feb 19, 2020

czurnieden commented Feb 19, 2020

sjaeckel commented Feb 20, 2020

MasterDuke17 commented Feb 20, 2020

sjaeckel commented Feb 20, 2020

MasterDuke17 commented Feb 21, 2020

chenrui333 commented Mar 27, 2024

sjaeckel commented Mar 28, 2024

sjaeckel commented Apr 16, 2024