On 13. 09. 19 17:09, Tom Rini wrote:
On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 03:39:53PM +0200, Michal Simek wrote:
From: T Karthik Reddy t.karthik.reddy@xilinx.com
This patch uses auto instead of decimal in simple_strtoul().
Signed-off-by: T Karthik Reddy t.karthik.reddy@xilinx.com Signed-off-by: Michal Simek michal.simek@xilinx.com
cmd/test.c | 24 ++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/cmd/test.c b/cmd/test.c index fa0c349f0827..258bfd880653 100644 --- a/cmd/test.c +++ b/cmd/test.c @@ -113,28 +113,28 @@ static int do_test(cmd_tbl_t *cmdtp, int flag, int argc, char * const argv[]) expr = strcmp(ap[0], ap[2]) > 0; break; case OP_INT_EQ:
expr = simple_strtol(ap[0], NULL, 10) ==simple_strtol(ap[2], NULL, 10);
expr = simple_strtol(ap[0], NULL, 0) ==simple_strtol(ap[2], NULL, 0); break;
expr = simple_strtol(ap[0], NULL, 10) !=simple_strtol(ap[2], NULL, 10);
expr = simple_strtol(ap[0], NULL, 0) !=simple_strtol(ap[2], NULL, 0); break;
expr = simple_strtol(ap[0], NULL, 10) <simple_strtol(ap[2], NULL, 10);
expr = simple_strtol(ap[0], NULL, 0) <simple_strtol(ap[2], NULL, 0); break;
expr = simple_strtol(ap[0], NULL, 10) <=simple_strtol(ap[2], NULL, 10);
expr = simple_strtol(ap[0], NULL, 0) <=simple_strtol(ap[2], NULL, 0); break;
expr = simple_strtol(ap[0], NULL, 10) >simple_strtol(ap[2], NULL, 10);
expr = simple_strtol(ap[0], NULL, 0) >simple_strtol(ap[2], NULL, 0); break;
expr = simple_strtol(ap[0], NULL, 10) >=simple_strtol(ap[2], NULL, 10);
expr = simple_strtol(ap[0], NULL, 0) >=simple_strtol(ap[2], NULL, 0); break;I'm going to NAK this, but could be argued around to changing my mind. While it's true that in general command inputs are hex and not decimal, this has been decimal since introduction in 2009. So changing it now is breaking ABI and other peoples test scripts, so I don't think we can do this, sorry.
I also think that this is not breaking any ABI. test_hush_if_test.py is around for a while to capture issues in this space and I can't see any single failure in connection to this change.
If this accepted then we can add more tests like this ('test 0x2000000 -gt 0x2000001', False), ('test 0x2000000 -gt 0x2000000', False), ('test 0x2000000 -gt 0x1ffffff', True), ('test 2000000 -gt 0x1ffffff', False), ('test 0x2000000 -gt 1ffffff', True),
('test 0x2000000 -lt 1ffffff', False), ('test 0x2000000 -eq 2000000', False), ('test 0x2000000 -ne 2000000', True),
where some of them are failing without this patch ... test_hush_if_test[test 0x2000000 -gt 0x1ffffff-True]
... test_hush_if_test[test 2000000 -gt 0x1ffffff-False]
... test_hush_if_test[test 0x2000000 -gt 1ffffff-True]
... test_hush_if_test[test 0x2000000 -lt 1ffffff-False]
Thanks, Michal