From: Alejandro Colomar <alx.manpages@gmail.com>
To: GNU C Library <libc-alpha@sourceware.org>
Cc: linux-man <linux-man@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: bug in roundup(3) from <sys/param.h>
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2023 21:46:55 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1825384a-e02a-c19d-eb22-aedc749046bc@gmail.com> (raw)
[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4194 bytes --]
Hi!
I was trying to understand what roundup() is (defined in <sys/param,h>).
It seems to be kind of:
SYNOPSIS
#include <sys/param.h>
roundup(x, step);
DESCRIPTION
This macro rounds x to the nearest multiple of step that is not less
than x.
I found that it doesn't work for negative numbers; but that's expected, and it
could be documented as such. However, it doesn't work nicely with unsigned
integers either: for values close to zero, where wrap around happens, the result
is also bogus. See my experiments below.
$ sed -n 92,98p /usr/include/x86_64-linux-gnu/sys/param.h
#ifdef __GNUC__
# define roundup(x, y) (__builtin_constant_p (y) && powerof2 (y) \
? (((x) + (y) - 1) & ~((y) - 1)) \
: ((((x) + ((y) - 1)) / (y)) * (y)))
#else
# define roundup(x, y) ((((x) + ((y) - 1)) / (y)) * (y))
#endif
$ cat roundup.c
#include <stdint.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <sys/param.h>
int
main(void)
{
/* signed */
{
int32_t n, m;
m = 3;
n = 10;
puts("signed:");
for (int32_t x = -n; x < 0; x++)
printf("roundup(%d, %d) == %d\n", x, m, roundup(x, m));
puts("");
for (int32_t x = 0; x < n; x++)
printf("roundup(%d, %d) == %d\n", x, m, roundup(x, m));
puts("");
for (int32_t x = INT32_MIN; x < INT_MIN + n; x++)
printf("roundup(%d, %d) == %d\n", x, m, roundup(x, m));
puts("");
for (int32_t x = INT32_MAX; x > INT32_MAX - n; x--)
printf("roundup(%d, %d) == %d\n", x, m, roundup(x, m));
}
/* unsigned */
{
uint32_t n, m;
m = 3;
n = 10;
puts("\nunsigned:");
for (uint32_t x = 1; x < n; x++)
printf("roundup(%u, %u) == %u\n", -x, m, roundup(-x, m));
puts("");
for (uint32_t x = 0; x < n; x++)
printf("roundup(%u, %u) == %u\n", x, m, roundup(x, m));
}
}
$ cc -Wall -Wextra -Werror roundup.c
$ ./a.out
signed:
roundup(-10, 3) == -6
roundup(-9, 3) == -6
roundup(-8, 3) == -6
roundup(-7, 3) == -3
roundup(-6, 3) == -3
roundup(-5, 3) == -3
roundup(-4, 3) == 0
roundup(-3, 3) == 0
roundup(-2, 3) == 0
roundup(-1, 3) == 0
/* These values are nonsense, but OK, let's ignore the negative */
roundup(0, 3) == 0
roundup(1, 3) == 3
roundup(2, 3) == 3
roundup(3, 3) == 3
roundup(4, 3) == 6
roundup(5, 3) == 6
roundup(6, 3) == 6
roundup(7, 3) == 9
roundup(8, 3) == 9
roundup(9, 3) == 9
/* These make sense */
roundup(-2147483648, 3) == -2147483646
roundup(-2147483647, 3) == -2147483643
roundup(-2147483646, 3) == -2147483643
roundup(-2147483645, 3) == -2147483643
roundup(-2147483644, 3) == -2147483640
roundup(-2147483643, 3) == -2147483640
roundup(-2147483642, 3) == -2147483640
roundup(-2147483641, 3) == -2147483637
roundup(-2147483640, 3) == -2147483637
roundup(-2147483639, 3) == -2147483637
/* Nonsense; ignore the negative */
roundup(2147483647, 3) == -2147483646 // UB; ignore
roundup(2147483646, 3) == -2147483646 // UB; ignore
roundup(2147483645, 3) == 2147483646
roundup(2147483644, 3) == 2147483646
roundup(2147483643, 3) == 2147483643
roundup(2147483642, 3) == 2147483643
roundup(2147483641, 3) == 2147483643
roundup(2147483640, 3) == 2147483640
roundup(2147483639, 3) == 2147483640
roundup(2147483638, 3) == 2147483640
/* These make sense */
unsigned:
roundup(4294967295, 3) == 0 // Wrong; should be: 4294967295
roundup(4294967294, 3) == 0 // Wrong; should be: 4294967295
roundup(4294967293, 3) == 4294967295
roundup(4294967292, 3) == 4294967292
roundup(4294967291, 3) == 4294967292
roundup(4294967290, 3) == 4294967292
roundup(4294967289, 3) == 4294967289
roundup(4294967288, 3) == 4294967289
roundup(4294967287, 3) == 4294967289
roundup(0, 3) == 0
roundup(1, 3) == 3
roundup(2, 3) == 3
roundup(3, 3) == 3
roundup(4, 3) == 6
roundup(5, 3) == 6
roundup(6, 3) == 6
roundup(7, 3) == 9
roundup(8, 3) == 9
roundup(9, 3) == 9
Do you think this is something to be fixed without important performance
penalties, or should we just document the bug and live with it?
Cheers,
Alex
--
<http://www.alejandro-colomar.es/>
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]
next reply other threads:[~2023-01-16 20:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-01-16 20:46 Alejandro Colomar [this message]
2023-01-17 2:22 ` Alejandro Colomar
2023-01-17 14:55 ` Adhemerval Zanella Netto
2023-01-17 19:16 Wilco Dijkstra
2023-01-17 19:50 ` Alejandro Colomar
2023-01-17 20:11 ` Paul Eggert
2023-01-17 20:13 ` Alejandro Colomar
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1825384a-e02a-c19d-eb22-aedc749046bc@gmail.com \
--to=alx.manpages@gmail.com \
--cc=libc-alpha@sourceware.org \
--cc=linux-man@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).