On Sun, 2015-03-22 at 22:03 +0000, Emil Velikov wrote:
Get the test from completely broken to working like a charm.
- Use the same variable type for both HashInsert and HashLookup.
- Use correct storage type for the HashLookup return value.
- Remove useless backward iteration of HashLookup(i).
Signed-off-by: Emil Velikov emil.l.velikov@gmail.com
tests/hash.c | 31 ++++++++++++++----------------- 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tests/hash.c b/tests/hash.c index d57d2dc..902919f 100644 --- a/tests/hash.c +++ b/tests/hash.c @@ -139,27 +139,27 @@ static void compute_dist(HashTablePtr table) static void check_table(HashTablePtr table, unsigned long key, unsigned long value)
I think we should use void* for value here.
{
- unsigned long retval = 0;
- int retcode = drmHashLookup(table, key, &retval);
- unsigned long *retval;
- int retcode = drmHashLookup(table, key, (void **)&retval);
I don't think this is correct. If the entry is found, it stores address to stack variable i in retval, which at this point in iteration incidentally contains the value we are looking for.
switch (retcode) { case -1:printf("Bad magic = 0x%08lx:" " key = %lu, expected = %lu, returned = %lu\n",
table->magic, key, value, retval);
table->magic, key, value, *retval);
- printf("Not found: key = %lu, expected = %lu returned = %lu\n",
key, value, retval);
- printf("Not found: key = %lu, expected = %lu, returned = %lu\n",
key, value, *retval);
- if (value != retval)
- if (value != *retval) printf("Bad value: key = %lu, expected = %lu, returned = %lu\n",
key, value, retval);
key, value, *retval);
retcode, key, value, retval);
retcode, key, value, *retval);} @@ -167,36 +167,33 @@ static void check_table(HashTablePtr table, int main(void) { HashTablePtr table;
- int i;
unsigned long i;
printf("\n***** 256 consecutive integers ****\n"); table = drmHashCreate();
- for (i = 0; i < 256; i++) drmHashInsert(table, i, i);
- for (i = 0; i < 256; i++) drmHashInsert(table, i, (void *)&i);
This changes the entries inserted. previously it would insert values [0, 256). Now it inserts address of i 256 times. I think we should change the inserted values to be different from the key (offset should be enough), to catch the kind of scenario this tests creates.
for (i = 0; i < 256; i++) check_table(table, i, i);
for (i = 256; i >= 0; i--) check_table(table, i, i); compute_dist(table); drmHashDestroy(table);
printf("\n***** 1024 consecutive integers ****\n"); table = drmHashCreate();
for (i = 0; i < 1024; i++) drmHashInsert(table, i, i);
- for (i = 0; i < 1024; i++) drmHashInsert(table, i, (void *)&i); for (i = 0; i < 1024; i++) check_table(table, i, i);
for (i = 1024; i >= 0; i--) check_table(table, i, i); compute_dist(table); drmHashDestroy(table);
printf("\n***** 1024 consecutive page addresses (4k pages) ****\n"); table = drmHashCreate();
for (i = 0; i < 1024; i++) drmHashInsert(table, i*4096, i);
- for (i = 0; i < 1024; i++) drmHashInsert(table, i*4096, (void *)&i); for (i = 0; i < 1024; i++) check_table(table, i*4096, i);
for (i = 1024; i >= 0; i--) check_table(table, i*4096, i); compute_dist(table); drmHashDestroy(table);
printf("\n***** 1024 random integers ****\n"); table = drmHashCreate(); srandom(0xbeefbeef);
for (i = 0; i < 1024; i++) drmHashInsert(table, random(), i);
- for (i = 0; i < 1024; i++) drmHashInsert(table, random(), (void *)&i); srandom(0xbeefbeef); for (i = 0; i < 1024; i++) check_table(table, random(), i); srandom(0xbeefbeef);
@@ -207,7 +204,7 @@ int main(void) printf("\n***** 5000 random integers ****\n"); table = drmHashCreate(); srandom(0xbeefbeef);
- for (i = 0; i < 5000; i++) drmHashInsert(table, random(), i);
- for (i = 0; i < 5000; i++) drmHashInsert(table, random(), (void *)&i); srandom(0xbeefbeef); for (i = 0; i < 5000; i++) check_table(table, random(), i); srandom(0xbeefbeef);