Hi Karine, thanks for pointing this out.
I believe that we never used these features too much, so never noticed this.
Can I ask you to prepare a pull request fixing the easy parts, and then
we'll look at whatever's left?
Thanks,
John
On 3/16/20 3:48 AM, Even Mendoza, Karine wrote:
> Hi John
>
>
> I was testing csmith the macro options; however, when running on a large population of seed, we got testcases with a different output when using macros.
>
> I debugged it a bit, and it is due to 3 main issues: (1) safe condition checks are not always the same, (2) casting (between explicit C-like casting in the macros and implicit casting coming from the function signature), and last (3) brackets.
>
> I can relatively easily fix 2+3, however (1) tends to be a bit more tricky.
>
>
> For example:
> The seed: 314862222 produces a different result when using macros due to differences in the conditions (the ternary operator) in rshift_func_int8_t_s_u.
>
> I compile it and run it that way:
> ./src/csmith --seed 314862222 --bitfields --packed-struct >> temp_regular_5.c
> clang -I../runtimeExp -DUSE_MATH_MACROS -w -O temp_regular_5.c -o temp_macros_5
>
> The conditions:
> ((left < 0) || (((unsigned int)right) >= 32)) vs. (((int8_t)(left)) < ((int8_t)0)) || (((unsigned int)(right)) >= sizeof(int8_t)*CHAR_BIT)); these are evaluated to false vs. true for seed 314862222.
>
>
> Please let me know if more examples of seeds could help. I have several examples.
>
>
> Thanks much,
>
> Karine
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From:
csmith-dev-bounces@flux.utah.edu <
csmith-dev-bounces@flux.utah.edu> On Behalf Of John Regehr
> Sent: 24 February 2020 18:01
> To:
csmith-dev@flux.utah.edu
> Subject: Re: [csmith-dev] Using safe math headers in csmith
>
>
> *******************
> This email originates from outside Imperial. Do not click on links and attachments unless you recognise the sender.
> If you trust the sender, add them to your safe senders list
https://spam.ic.ac.uk/SpamConsole/Senders.aspx to disable email stamping for this address.
> *******************
> Hi Karine, ok, I looked into this. Both of these alternative header files appear to work just fine. If you want to use the NOTMP versions, you need to pass Csmith the additional --math-notmp flag.
>
> I ran this shell script a few times and both versions always produced the same checksum:
>
> ./src/csmith > foo.c
> clang -O0 -w foo.c -I../runtime -o foo1
> clang -O0 foo.c -I../runtime -DUSE_MATH_MACROS -w -o foo2 ulimit -t 2
> ./foo1
> ./foo2
>
> Let us know if anything doesn't work as advertised.
>
> John
>
>
>
> On 2/24/20 8:20 AM, John Regehr wrote:
>> Hi Karine,
>>
>> Well, I just tried to compile a program using -DUSE_MATH_MACROS_NOTMP
>> and it did not compile, so something must have gone wrong here. I
>> assume the same thing happened when you tried this?
>>
>> I'll try to look into it soon.
>>
>> John
>>
>>
>> On 2/24/20 2:28 AM, Even Mendoza, Karine wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I would like to know if the version of csmith using the header
>>> safe_math_macros.h or safe_math_macros_notmp.c is working.
>>>
>>> Can I use these headers instead of safe_math.h and expect the same
>>> output for the generated programs?
>>>
>>> Thanks much,
>>>
>>> Karine
>>>