The most recent commit adds support for comments and macro expansion
on #line directives. Add testing to verify the new features.
Signed-off-by: Carl Worth <cworth@cworth.org>
Reviewed-by: Kenneth Graunke <kenneth@whitecape.org>
The GLSL specification requires that #line directives be interpreted
after macro expansion. Our existing implementation of #line macros in
the lexer prevents conformance on this point.
Moving the handling of #line from the lexer to the parser gives us the
macro expansion we need. An additional benefit is that the
preprocessor also now supports comments on the same line as #line
directives.
Finally, the preprocessor now emits the (fully-macro-expanded) #line
directives into the output. This allows the full GLSL compiler to also
see and interpret these directives so it can also generate correct
line numbers in error messages.
Signed-off-by: Carl Worth <cworth@cworth.org>
Reviewed-by: Kenneth Graunke <kenneth@whitecape.org>
A strict reading of the GLSL specification would have this be an
error, but we've received reports from users who expect the
preprocessor to interepret undefined macros as 0. This is the standard
behavior of the rpeprocessor for C, and according to these user
reports is also the behavior of other OpenGL implementations.
So here's one of those cases where we can make our users happier by
ignoring the specification. And it's hard to imagine users who really,
really want to see an error for this case.
The two affected tests cases are updated to reflect the new behavior.
Signed-off-by: Carl Worth <cworth@cworth.org>
Reviewed-by: Kenneth Graunke <kenneth@whitecape.org>
This test cases exposes a bug as described in this bug report:
"ralloc.c:78: get_header: Assertion `info->canary == 0x5A1106'
failed." when using a macro in GLSL
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=45082
Clearly, some memory is getting (incorrectly) freed on the first macro
invocation, leading to problems with the second macro invocation.
Reviewed-by: Kenneth Graunke <kenneth@whitecape.org>
Success was (tests-passed AND valgrind-tests-passed) but this meant that
if the valgrind tests weren't run it would be considered a failure.
The logic is now (tests-passed AND (!valgrind OR valgrind-tests-passed))
which lets us return success if the valgrind tests aren't run.
Reviewed-by: Eric Anholt <eric@anholt.net>
Tested-by: Eric Anholt <eric@anholt.net>
Signed-off-by: Matt Turner <mattst88@gmail.com>
As written, this test correctly raises an error for #elif being used
with an undefined macro (and not as an argument to "defined"). If the
preceding #if were '#if 1' then this diagnositc would correctly be
hidden. That allows code such as the following to not raise an error:
#ifndef MAYBE_UNDEFINED
#elif MAYBE_UNDEFINED < 5
...
#endif
So this test case is working as expected already. We add it here just
to improve test coverage.
Reviewed-by: Kenneth Graunke <kenneth@whitecape.org>
Signed-off-by: Carl Worth <cworth@cworth.org>
The specification reserves any macro name containing two consecutive
underscores, (anywhere within the name). Previously, we only raised
this error for macro names that started with two underscores.
Fix the implementation to check for two underscores anywhere, and also
update the corresponding 086-reserved-macro-names test.
This also fixes the following two piglit tests:
spec/glsl-1.30/preprocessor/reserved/double-underscore-02.frag
spec/glsl-1.30/preprocessor/reserved/double-underscore-03.frag
Reviewed-by: Kenneth Graunke <kenneth@whitecape.org>
Reviewed-by: Eric Anholt <eric@anholt.net>
Signed-off-by: Carl Worth <cworth@cworth.org>
Apparently we never implemented this, (but we've got a GLSL 1.30 test
in piglit that is exercising this case).
Reviewed-by: Kenneth Graunke <kenneth@whitecape.org>
Signed-off-by: Carl Worth <cworth@cworth.org>
This is something that piglit is exercising that currently fails.
Reviewed-by: Kenneth Graunke <kenneth@whitecape.org>
Signed-off-by: Carl Worth <cworth@cworth.org>
It's clear enough that the current segmentation fault isn't what we
want. And it's also very easy to know what we do want here, (just
check with any functional C preprocessor such as "gcc -E").
Add the desired output as an expected file so that the test suite
gives useful output, (showing the omitted output and the segfault),
rather than just reporting "No such file" for the expected file.
The common case for this test suite is to quickly test that everything
returns the correct results. In this case, the second run of the test
suite under valgrind was just annoying, (and the user would often
interrupt it).
Now, do what is wanted in the common case by default (just run the
test suite), and require a run with "glcpp-test --valgrind" in order
to test with valgrind.
The expected file here captures the current behavior of glcpp (which
is to generate an obscure "syntax error, unexpected $end" diagnostic
for this case).
It would certainly be better for glcpp to generate a nicer diagnostic,
(such as "missing closing parenthesis in function-like macro
definition" or so), but the current behavior is at least correct, and
expected. So we can make the test suite more useful by marking the
current behavior as expected.
The expected file here captures the current behavior of glcpp (which
is to generate a division-by-zero error) for this case.
It's easy to argue that it should be short-circuiting the evaluation
and not generating the diagnostic (which happens to be what gcc does).
But it doesn't seem like we should force this behavior on our
pre-processor, (and, as always, the GLSL specification of the
pre-processor is too vague on this point).
This test is behaving just fine already---it's generating an informative
diagnostic, ("error: division by 0 in preprocessor directive"), so adding
this in the expected file makes things pass.
The expected result has been out of sync with what glcpp produces for
some time; glcpp's actual result seems to be correct and is very close to
GCC's cpp. Updating this will make it easier to catch regressions in
upcoming commits.
This reverts commit d3df641f0a.
The original commit had sat unpushed on my machine for months. By the
time I found it again, I had forgotten that we had decided not to use
this change after all, (the relevant test was removed long ago).
The GLSL specification is vague here, (just says "as is standard for
C++"), though the C specifications seem quite clear that this should
be an error.
However, an existing piglit test (CorrectPreprocess11.frag) expects
this to be a warning, not an error, so we change this, and document in
README the deviation from the specification.
We recently added several tests that intentionally trigger
preprocessor errors. During valgrind-based testing, our test script
was noticing the non-zero return value from the preprocessor and
incorrectly flagging the valgrind-based test as failing.
To fix this, we make valgrind return an error code that is otherwise
unused by the preprocessor.
This test exposes two current bugs:
1. The source number is not being correctly emitted in error
messages (instead, it's always 0).
2. A directive of "#line 0" is resulting in the following
parse error:
preprocessor error: Invalid tokens after #
This directive is already implemented nicely, but wasn't previously tested.
It will be convenient to use this directive in further tests that rely
on error messages, (such as ensuring that #line correctly sets the line
number in the error message).
The specification says that redefining a macro is an error, unless the
new definitions is identical to the old one, (identical replacement
lists but ignoring differing amounts of whitespace).
In commit 6be3a8b70a, the #version directive
was fixed to stop generating a spurious newline. Here we simply update
the expected result for the single test which includes a #version directive.
This was previously being appended to the output string *after* a copy
of the supposedly final string was made and handed to the caller. So
the diagnostic was never actually visible to the user.
We fix this by moving the check for an unterminated #if from
glcpp_parser_destroy to the calling function, preprocess.
This fixes the test case 083-unterminated-if.c.
This is more clear than the previously-generated diagnostic which was
something confusing like "enexpected newline".
This change makse test 080-if-witout-expression.c now pass.
Rather than telling the user what to fix, the standard convention is to
describe what the detected problem is. With this change, test
081-elif-without-expression now passes.
Which are proving to be useful since some of these tests are not yet
acting as desired, (in particular, the unterminated if test is not
generating any diagnostic).
This adds a couple of test cases to expand our coverage of invalid #if and
being skipped, (either by being nested inside an #if/#elif that evaluates to
zero or by being after an #if/#elif that evaluates to non-zero).
We're already using the return-value of cmp to print either PASS or
FAIL and in the case of failure, we're subsequently running and
showing the output of diff. So any warnings/errors from cmp itself are
not actually needed, and can be quite confusing.
Commit d4a04f3155 caused this test case
to produce an additional blank line, which is otherwise harmless, but
does need to be reflected in the .expected file for the test to pass.
It's really hard to believe that this case has been broken, but apparently
no test previously exercised it. So this commit adds such a test and fixes
it by making a copy of the argument token-list before expanding it.
This fix causes the following glean tests to now pass:
glsl1-Preprocessor test 6 (#if 0, #define macro)
glsl1-Preprocessor test 7 (multi-line #define)
Consider this test case:
#define EMPTY
int foo = 1+EMPTY+4;
The expression should compile as the sequence of tokens 1, PLUS,
UNARY_POSITIVE, 4. But glcpp has been failing for this case since it
results in the string "1++4" which a compiler correctly sees as a
syntax error, (1, POST_INCREMENT, 4).
We fix this by changing any macro with an empty definition to result
in a single SPACE token rather than nothing. This then gives "1+ +4"
which compiles correctly.
This commit does touch up the two existing test cases which already
have empty macros, (to add the space to the expected result).
It also adds a new test case to exercise the above scenario.
Previously, if the outer #ifdef/#ifndef evaluated to false, the inner
directive would not be parsed correctly, (the identifier as the subject
of the #ifdef/#ifndef would inadvertently be skipped along with the other
content correctly being skipped).
We fix this by setting the lexing_if state in each case here.
We also add a new test to the test suite to ensure that this case is tested.
As it turns out, 4 of our current tests are not valgrind clean,
(use after free errors or so), so this will be helpful for
investigating and fixing those.
Carl Worth