[PATCH] [gdb] Improve selftest c_ctrl_unctrl

[PATCH] [gdb] Improve selftest c_ctrl_unctrl

[Tom de Vries]

Improve selftest c_ctrl_unctrl by exercising all valid inputs of c_iscntrl.

Tested on x86_64-linux.

Suggested-By: Tom Tromey <tom@tromey.com> [1]

[1] https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2026-March/226231.html
---
 gdb/utils.c | 24 +++++++++++++++++++++---
 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/gdb/utils.c b/gdb/utils.c
index b073bb9fdf3..c8903896081 100644
--- a/gdb/utils.c
+++ b/gdb/utils.c
@@ -3793,12 +3793,30 @@ test_c_ctrl_unctrl ()
   SELF_CHECK (c_ctrl ('?') == 0x7f);
   SELF_CHECK (c_unctrl (0x7f) == '?');
 
-  /* Consistency check.  */
-  for (unsigned int i = 0; i < 0x100; i++)
+  /* Consistency check.
+
+     The ctype.h function iscntrl has an int parameter, and defined behavior
+     for inputs [0, 255] and EOF.  Consequently, iscntrl has undefined
+     behavior when called with a negative signed char argument (with the
+     possible exception of EOF, which is a negative int constant).  That
+     extends to chars on platforms where char == signed char.  Consequently,
+     to write portable code, iscntrl char and signed char arguments need to be
+     cast to unsigned char.
+
+     The c-ctype.h variant c_iscntrl sidesteps this problem by having defined
+     behavior for inputs [-128, 255] and not bothering about EOF.
+
+     The functions c_ctrl/c_unctrl sidestep this issue by using parameter
+     type unsigned char instead of int.
+
+     So, testing input values [0..255] tests all relevant behavior of
+     c_ctrl/c_unctrl.  However, we designed these functions to be compatible
+     with c_iscntrl, so we test for all valid inputs of that function.  */
+  for (int i = -128; i < 256; i++)
     {
       unsigned char ch = i;
       unsigned char unctrl_ch = c_unctrl (ch);
-      if (!c_iscntrl (ch))
+      if (!c_iscntrl (i))
 	{
 	  SELF_CHECK (unctrl_ch == ch);
 	  continue;

base-commit: edf0ae3b9f1ca23daaa55628683edc9a3360286f
-- 
2.51.0

[PING][PATCH] [gdb] Improve selftest c_ctrl_unctrl

[Tom de Vries]

On 3/26/26 3:04 PM, Tom de Vries wrote:
> Improve selftest c_ctrl_unctrl by exercising all valid inputs of c_iscntrl.
> 

Ping.

Thanks,
- Tom

> Tested on x86_64-linux.
> 
> Suggested-By: Tom Tromey <tom@tromey.com> [1]
> 
> [1] https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2026-March/226231.html
> ---
>   gdb/utils.c | 24 +++++++++++++++++++++---
>   1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/gdb/utils.c b/gdb/utils.c
> index b073bb9fdf3..c8903896081 100644
> --- a/gdb/utils.c
> +++ b/gdb/utils.c
> @@ -3793,12 +3793,30 @@ test_c_ctrl_unctrl ()
>     SELF_CHECK (c_ctrl ('?') == 0x7f);
>     SELF_CHECK (c_unctrl (0x7f) == '?');
>   
> -  /* Consistency check.  */
> -  for (unsigned int i = 0; i < 0x100; i++)
> +  /* Consistency check.
> +
> +     The ctype.h function iscntrl has an int parameter, and defined behavior
> +     for inputs [0, 255] and EOF.  Consequently, iscntrl has undefined
> +     behavior when called with a negative signed char argument (with the
> +     possible exception of EOF, which is a negative int constant).  That
> +     extends to chars on platforms where char == signed char.  Consequently,
> +     to write portable code, iscntrl char and signed char arguments need to be
> +     cast to unsigned char.
> +
> +     The c-ctype.h variant c_iscntrl sidesteps this problem by having defined
> +     behavior for inputs [-128, 255] and not bothering about EOF.
> +
> +     The functions c_ctrl/c_unctrl sidestep this issue by using parameter
> +     type unsigned char instead of int.
> +
> +     So, testing input values [0..255] tests all relevant behavior of
> +     c_ctrl/c_unctrl.  However, we designed these functions to be compatible
> +     with c_iscntrl, so we test for all valid inputs of that function.  */
> +  for (int i = -128; i < 256; i++)
>       {
>         unsigned char ch = i;
>         unsigned char unctrl_ch = c_unctrl (ch);
> -      if (!c_iscntrl (ch))
> +      if (!c_iscntrl (i))
>   	{
>   	  SELF_CHECK (unctrl_ch == ch);
>   	  continue;
> 
> base-commit: edf0ae3b9f1ca23daaa55628683edc9a3360286f

Re: [PING][PATCH] [gdb] Improve selftest c_ctrl_unctrl

[Tom de Vries]

On 4/10/26 2:32 PM, Tom de Vries wrote:
> On 3/26/26 3:04 PM, Tom de Vries wrote:
>> Improve selftest c_ctrl_unctrl by exercising all valid inputs of 
>> c_iscntrl.
>>
> 
> Ping.
> 

I've pushed this.

Thanks,
- Tom

> Thanks,
> - Tom
> 
>> Tested on x86_64-linux.
>>
>> Suggested-By: Tom Tromey <tom@tromey.com> [1]
>>
>> [1] https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2026-March/226231.html
>> ---
>>   gdb/utils.c | 24 +++++++++++++++++++++---
>>   1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/gdb/utils.c b/gdb/utils.c
>> index b073bb9fdf3..c8903896081 100644
>> --- a/gdb/utils.c
>> +++ b/gdb/utils.c
>> @@ -3793,12 +3793,30 @@ test_c_ctrl_unctrl ()
>>     SELF_CHECK (c_ctrl ('?') == 0x7f);
>>     SELF_CHECK (c_unctrl (0x7f) == '?');
>> -  /* Consistency check.  */
>> -  for (unsigned int i = 0; i < 0x100; i++)
>> +  /* Consistency check.
>> +
>> +     The ctype.h function iscntrl has an int parameter, and defined 
>> behavior
>> +     for inputs [0, 255] and EOF.  Consequently, iscntrl has undefined
>> +     behavior when called with a negative signed char argument (with the
>> +     possible exception of EOF, which is a negative int constant).  That
>> +     extends to chars on platforms where char == signed char.  
>> Consequently,
>> +     to write portable code, iscntrl char and signed char arguments 
>> need to be
>> +     cast to unsigned char.
>> +
>> +     The c-ctype.h variant c_iscntrl sidesteps this problem by having 
>> defined
>> +     behavior for inputs [-128, 255] and not bothering about EOF.
>> +
>> +     The functions c_ctrl/c_unctrl sidestep this issue by using 
>> parameter
>> +     type unsigned char instead of int.
>> +
>> +     So, testing input values [0..255] tests all relevant behavior of
>> +     c_ctrl/c_unctrl.  However, we designed these functions to be 
>> compatible
>> +     with c_iscntrl, so we test for all valid inputs of that 
>> function.  */
>> +  for (int i = -128; i < 256; i++)
>>       {
>>         unsigned char ch = i;
>>         unsigned char unctrl_ch = c_unctrl (ch);
>> -      if (!c_iscntrl (ch))
>> +      if (!c_iscntrl (i))
>>       {
>>         SELF_CHECK (unctrl_ch == ch);
>>         continue;
>>
>> base-commit: edf0ae3b9f1ca23daaa55628683edc9a3360286f
>