By convention, a library meant for testing exports "run-tests".
Also by convention, assume the test for (foo bar) is (foo bar-test),
keeping the test in the same directory and avoiding confusion since
(chibi test) is not a test for (chibi).
- Avoids the hack of "load"ing test, with resulting namespace complications.
- Allows keeping tests together with the libraries.
- Allows setting up test hooks before running.
- Allows implicit inference of test locations when using above conventions.
Previous code was losing the carry bit in 'all ones' case, when adata[i]
= bdata[i] = SEXP_UINT_T_MAX, and carry = 1 too. In this case expression
(SEXP_UINT_T_MAX - bdata[i] - carry) overflows and yields an incorrect
value SEXP_UINT_T_MAX which results into carry being incorrectly set to
0 after addition.
We need to avoid the second overflow when calculating the new value of
the carry bit. One way to do this is at first check for the overflow in
(adata[i] + bdata[i]), and then throw in the (previous) carry bit.
I have also given "n" more expressive name and added a comment about
the reason why we need that temporary variable.
Naturally, fixed-width integer arithmetics can overflow. Chibi handles
it pretty well in general, but one case was missing: it is negation of
the minimal negative number that can be represented as a fixnum. That is,
sexp_fx_neg() must not be applied to sexp_make_fixnum(SEXP_MIN_FIXNUM)
because it overflows and returns an identical fixnum back.
sexp_fx_neg() itself seems to be used right in the current code, but
sexp_fx_abs()--which is defined in terms of sexp_fx_neg()--could be
applied to the forbidden number when used to retrieve an unboxed value
via the sexp_unbox_fixnum(sexp_fx_abs(x)) pattern. So I have added a
separate macro that safely calculates unboxed absolute value of a fixnum,
and replaced sexp_unbox_fixnum(sexp_fx_abs(x)) usages with it.
Current implementation uses two-bit tag for fixnums, plus we need one
bit for the sign, so fixnums have (machine word - 3) significant bits.
Regression tests cover word sizes of 16, 32, 64, and 128 bits (for the
sake of past- and future-proofness).
sexp_bignum_expt() does not have a regression test because we need to
check it with negative exponents like -2^29, so the base must be over
at least 2^(2^29) for the differences to be visible. Fun fact: bignum
representation of such number takes around 1/32 of the available user-
space memory, which makes testing on anything except 32-bit systems
unreasonable (4 TB of RAM anyone?)
