Home | History | Annotate | Line # | Download | only in unit-tests
varmod-ifelse.mk revision 1.25
      1 # $NetBSD: varmod-ifelse.mk,v 1.25 2023/11/19 21:47:52 rillig Exp $
      2 #
      3 # Tests for the ${cond:?then:else} variable modifier, which evaluates either
      4 # the then-expression or the else-expression, depending on the condition.
      5 #
      6 # The modifier was added on 1998-04-01.
      7 #
      8 # Until 2015-10-11, the modifier always evaluated both the "then" and the
      9 # "else" expressions.
     10 
     11 # TODO: Implementation
     12 
     13 # The variable name of the expression is expanded and then taken as the
     14 # condition.  In the below example it becomes:
     15 #
     16 #	bare words == "literal"
     17 #
     18 # This confuses the parser, which expects an operator instead of the bare
     19 # word "expression".  If the name were expanded lazily, everything would be
     20 # fine since the condition would be:
     21 #
     22 #	${:Ubare words} == "literal"
     23 #
     24 # Evaluating the variable name lazily would require additional code in
     25 # Var_Parse and ParseVarname, it would be more useful and predictable
     26 # though.
     27 # expect+1: Malformed conditional (${${:Ubare words} == "literal":?bad:bad})
     28 .if ${${:Ubare words} == "literal":?bad:bad}
     29 .  error
     30 .else
     31 .  error
     32 .endif
     33 
     34 # In a variable assignment, undefined variables are not an error.
     35 # Because of the early expansion, the whole condition evaluates to
     36 # ' == ""' though, which cannot be parsed because the left-hand side looks
     37 # empty.
     38 COND:=	${${UNDEF} == "":?bad-assign:bad-assign}
     39 
     40 # In a condition, undefined variables generate a "Malformed conditional"
     41 # error.  That error message is wrong though.  In lint mode, the correct
     42 # "Undefined variable" error message is generated.
     43 # The difference to the ':=' variable assignment is the additional
     44 # "Malformed conditional" error message.
     45 # expect+1: Malformed conditional (${${UNDEF} == "":?bad-cond:bad-cond})
     46 .if ${${UNDEF} == "":?bad-cond:bad-cond}
     47 .  error
     48 .else
     49 .  error
     50 .endif
     51 
     52 # When the :? is parsed, it is greedy.  The else branch spans all the
     53 # text, up until the closing character '}', even if the text looks like
     54 # another modifier.
     55 .if ${1:?then:else:Q} != "then"
     56 .  error
     57 .endif
     58 .if ${0:?then:else:Q} != "else:Q"
     59 .  error
     60 .endif
     61 
     62 # This line generates 2 error messages.  The first comes from evaluating the
     63 # malformed conditional "1 == == 2", which is reported as "Bad conditional
     64 # expression" by ApplyModifier_IfElse.  The expression containing that
     65 # conditional therefore returns a parse error from Var_Parse, and this parse
     66 # error propagates to CondEvalExpression, where the "Malformed conditional"
     67 # comes from.
     68 # expect+1: Malformed conditional (${1 == == 2:?yes:no} != "")
     69 .if ${1 == == 2:?yes:no} != ""
     70 .  error
     71 .else
     72 .  error
     73 .endif
     74 
     75 # If the "Bad conditional expression" appears in a quoted string literal, the
     76 # error message "Malformed conditional" is not printed, leaving only the "Bad
     77 # conditional expression".
     78 #
     79 # XXX: The left-hand side is enclosed in quotes.  This results in Var_Parse
     80 # being called without VARE_UNDEFERR.  When ApplyModifier_IfElse
     81 # returns AMR_CLEANUP as result, Var_Parse returns varUndefined since the
     82 # value of the expression is still undefined.  CondParser_String is
     83 # then supposed to do proper error handling, but since varUndefined is local
     84 # to var.c, it cannot distinguish this return value from an ordinary empty
     85 # string.  The left-hand side of the comparison is therefore just an empty
     86 # string, which is obviously equal to the empty string on the right-hand side.
     87 #
     88 # XXX: The debug log for -dc shows a comparison between 1.0 and 0.0.  The
     89 # condition should be detected as being malformed before any comparison is
     90 # done since there is no well-formed comparison in the condition at all.
     91 .MAKEFLAGS: -dc
     92 .if "${1 == == 2:?yes:no}" != ""
     93 .  error
     94 .else
     95 # expect+1: warning: Oops, the parse error should have been propagated.
     96 .  warning Oops, the parse error should have been propagated.
     97 .endif
     98 .MAKEFLAGS: -d0
     99 
    100 # As of 2020-12-10, the variable "VAR" is first expanded, and the result of
    101 # this expansion is then taken as the condition.  To force the
    102 # expression in the condition to be evaluated at exactly the right point,
    103 # the '$' of the intended '${VAR}' escapes from the parser in form of the
    104 # expression ${:U\$}.  Because of this escaping, the variable "VAR" and thus
    105 # the condition ends up as "${VAR} == value", just as intended.
    106 #
    107 # This hack does not work for variables from .for loops since these are
    108 # expanded at parse time to their corresponding ${:Uvalue} expressions.
    109 # Making the '$' of the '${VAR}' expression indirect hides this expression
    110 # from the parser of the .for loop body.  See ForLoop_SubstVarLong.
    111 .MAKEFLAGS: -dc
    112 VAR=	value
    113 .if ${ ${:U\$}{VAR} == value:?ok:bad} != "ok"
    114 .  error
    115 .endif
    116 .MAKEFLAGS: -d0
    117 
    118 # On 2021-04-19, when building external/bsd/tmux with HAVE_LLVM=yes and
    119 # HAVE_GCC=no, the following conditional generated this error message:
    120 #
    121 #	make: Bad conditional expression 'string == "literal" && no >= 10'
    122 #	    in 'string == "literal" && no >= 10?yes:no'
    123 #
    124 # Despite the error message (which was not clearly marked with "error:"),
    125 # the build continued, for historical reasons, see main_Exit.
    126 #
    127 # The tricky detail here is that the condition that looks so obvious in the
    128 # form written in the makefile becomes tricky when it is actually evaluated.
    129 # This is because the condition is written in the place of the variable name
    130 # of the expression, and in an expression, the variable name is always
    131 # expanded first, before even looking at the modifiers.  This happens for the
    132 # modifier ':?' as well, so when CondEvalExpression gets to see the
    133 # expression, it already looks like this:
    134 #
    135 #	string == "literal" && no >= 10
    136 #
    137 # When parsing such an expression, the parser used to be strict.  It first
    138 # evaluated the left-hand side of the operator '&&' and then started parsing
    139 # the right-hand side 'no >= 10'.  The word 'no' is obviously a string
    140 # literal, not enclosed in quotes, which is OK, even on the left-hand side of
    141 # the comparison operator, but only because this is a condition in the
    142 # modifier ':?'.  In an ordinary directive '.if', this would be a parse error.
    143 # For strings, only the comparison operators '==' and '!=' are defined,
    144 # therefore parsing stopped at the '>', producing the 'Bad conditional
    145 # expression'.
    146 #
    147 # Ideally, the conditional expression would not be expanded before parsing
    148 # it.  This would allow to write the conditions exactly as seen below.  That
    149 # change has a high chance of breaking _some_ existing code and would need
    150 # to be thoroughly tested.
    151 #
    152 # Since cond.c 1.262 from 2021-04-20, make reports a more specific error
    153 # message in situations like these, pointing directly to the specific problem
    154 # instead of just saying that the whole condition is bad.
    155 STRING=		string
    156 NUMBER=		no		# not really a number
    157 # expect+1: no.
    158 .info ${${STRING} == "literal" && ${NUMBER} >= 10:?yes:no}.
    159 # expect+3: Comparison with '>=' requires both operands 'no' and '10' to be numeric
    160 # expect: make: Bad conditional expression 'string == "literal" || no >= 10' in 'string == "literal" || no >= 10?yes:no'
    161 # expect+1: .
    162 .info ${${STRING} == "literal" || ${NUMBER} >= 10:?yes:no}.
    163 
    164 # The following situation occasionally occurs with MKINET6 or similar
    165 # variables.
    166 NUMBER=		# empty, not really a number either
    167 # expect: make: Bad conditional expression 'string == "literal" &&  >= 10' in 'string == "literal" &&  >= 10?yes:no'
    168 # expect+1: .
    169 .info ${${STRING} == "literal" && ${NUMBER} >= 10:?yes:no}.
    170 # expect: make: Bad conditional expression 'string == "literal" ||  >= 10' in 'string == "literal" ||  >= 10?yes:no'
    171 # expect+1: .
    172 .info ${${STRING} == "literal" || ${NUMBER} >= 10:?yes:no}.
    173 
    174 # CondParser_LeafToken handles [0-9-+] specially, treating them as a number.
    175 PLUS=		+
    176 ASTERISK=	*
    177 EMPTY=		# empty
    178 # "true" since "+" is not the empty string.
    179 # expect+1: <true>
    180 .info <${${PLUS}		:?true:false}>
    181 # "false" since the variable named "*" is not defined.
    182 # expect+1: <false>
    183 .info <${${ASTERISK}	:?true:false}>
    184 # syntax error since the condition is completely blank.
    185 # expect+1: <>
    186 .info <${${EMPTY}	:?true:false}>
    187 
    188 
    189 # Since the condition of the '?:' modifier is expanded before being parsed and
    190 # evaluated, it is common practice to enclose expressions in quotes, to avoid
    191 # producing syntactically invalid conditions such as ' == value'.  This only
    192 # works if the expanded values neither contain quotes nor backslashes.  For
    193 # strings containing quotes or backslashes, the '?:' modifier should not be
    194 # used.
    195 PRIMES=	2 3 5 7 11
    196 .if ${1 2 3 4 5:L:@n@$n:${ ("${PRIMES:M$n}" != "") :?prime:not_prime}@} != \
    197   "1:not_prime 2:prime 3:prime 4:not_prime 5:prime"
    198 .  error
    199 .endif
    200 
    201 # When parsing the modifier ':?', there are 3 possible cases:
    202 #
    203 #	1. The whole expression is only parsed.
    204 #	2. The expression is parsed and the 'then' branch is evaluated.
    205 #	3. The expression is parsed and the 'else' branch is evaluated.
    206 #
    207 # In all of these cases, the expression must be parsed in the same way,
    208 # especially when one of the branches contains unbalanced '{}' braces.
    209 #
    210 # At 2020-01-01, the expressions from the 'then' and 'else' branches were
    211 # parsed differently, depending on whether the branch was taken or not.  When
    212 # the branch was taken, the parser recognized that in the modifier ':S,}},,',
    213 # the '}}' were ordinary characters.  When the branch was not taken, the
    214 # parser only counted balanced '{' and '}', ignoring any escaping or other
    215 # changes in the interpretation.
    216 #
    217 # In var.c 1.285 from 2020-07-20, the parsing of the expressions changed so
    218 # that in both cases the expression is parsed in the same way, taking the
    219 # unbalanced braces in the ':S' modifiers into account.  This change was not
    220 # on purpose, the commit message mentioned 'has the same effect', which was a
    221 # wrong assumption.
    222 #
    223 # In var.c 1.323 from 2020-07-26, the unintended fix from var.c 1.285 was
    224 # reverted, still not knowing about the difference between regular parsing and
    225 # balanced-mode parsing.
    226 #
    227 # In var.c 1.1028 from 2022-08-08, there was another attempt at fixing this
    228 # inconsistency in parsing, but since that broke parsing of the modifier ':@',
    229 # it was reverted in var.c 1.1029 from 2022-08-23.
    230 #
    231 # In var.c 1.1047 from 2023-02-18, the inconsistency in parsing was finally
    232 # fixed.  The modifier ':@' now parses the body in balanced mode, while
    233 # everywhere else the modifier parts have their subexpressions parsed in the
    234 # same way, no matter whether they are evaluated or not.
    235 #
    236 # The modifiers ':@' and ':?' are similar in that they conceptually contain
    237 # text to be evaluated later or conditionally, still they parse that text
    238 # differently.  The crucial difference is that the body of the modifier ':@'
    239 # is always parsed using balanced mode.  The modifier ':?', on the other hand,
    240 # must parse both of its branches in the same way, no matter whether they are
    241 # evaluated or not.  Since balanced mode and standard mode are incompatible,
    242 # it's impossible to use balanced mode in the modifier ':?'.
    243 .MAKEFLAGS: -dc
    244 .if 0 && ${1:?${:Uthen0:S,}},,}:${:Uelse0:S,}},,}} != "not evaluated"
    245 # At 2020-01-07, the expression evaluated to 'then0,,}}', even though it was
    246 # irrelevant as the '0' had already been evaluated to 'false'.
    247 .  error
    248 .endif
    249 .if 1 && ${0:?${:Uthen1:S,}},,}:${:Uelse1:S,}},,}} != "else1"
    250 .  error
    251 .endif
    252 .if 2 && ${1:?${:Uthen2:S,}},,}:${:Uelse2:S,}},,}} != "then2"
    253 # At 2020-01-07, the whole expression evaluated to 'then2,,}}' instead of the
    254 # expected 'then2'.  The 'then' branch of the ':?' modifier was parsed
    255 # normally, parsing and evaluating the ':S' modifier, thereby treating the
    256 # '}}' as ordinary characters and resulting in 'then2'.  The 'else' branch was
    257 # parsed in balanced mode, ignoring that the inner '}}' were ordinary
    258 # characters.  The '}}' were thus interpreted as the end of the 'else' branch
    259 # and the whole expression.  This left the trailing ',,}}', which together
    260 # with the 'then2' formed the result 'then2,,}}'.
    261 .  error
    262 .endif
    263 
    264 
    265 # Since the condition is taken from the variable name of the expression, not
    266 # from its value, it is evaluated early.  It is possible though to construct
    267 # conditions that are evaluated lazily, at exactly the right point.  There is
    268 # no way to escape a '$' directly in the variable name, but there are
    269 # alternative ways to bring a '$' into the condition.
    270 #
    271 #	In an indirect condition using the ':U' modifier, each '$', ':' and
    272 #	'}' must be escaped as '\$', '\:' and '\}', respectively, but '{' must
    273 #	not be escaped.
    274 #
    275 #	In an indirect condition using a separate variable, each '$' must be
    276 #	escaped as '$$'.
    277 #
    278 # These two forms allow the variables to contain arbitrary characters, as the
    279 # condition parser does not see them.
    280 DELAYED=	two
    281 # expect+1: no
    282 .info ${ ${:U \${DELAYED\} == "one"}:?yes:no}
    283 # expect+1: yes
    284 .info ${ ${:U \${DELAYED\} == "two"}:?yes:no}
    285 INDIRECT_COND1=	$${DELAYED} == "one"
    286 # expect+1: no
    287 .info ${ ${INDIRECT_COND1}:?yes:no}
    288 INDIRECT_COND2=	$${DELAYED} == "two"
    289 # expect+1: yes
    290 .info ${ ${INDIRECT_COND2}:?yes:no}
    291 
    292 
    293 .MAKEFLAGS: -d0
    294 
    295 
    296 # In the modifier parts for the 'then' and 'else' branches, subexpressions are
    297 # parsed in by inspecting the actual modifiers.  In 2008, 2015, 2020, 2022 and
    298 # 2023, the exact parsing algorithm switched a few times, counting balanced
    299 # braces instead of proper subexpressions, which meant that unbalanced braces
    300 # were parsed differently, depending on whether the branch was active or not.
    301 BRACES=	}}}
    302 NO=	${0:?${BRACES:S,}}},yes,}:${BRACES:S,}}},no,}}
    303 YES=	${1:?${BRACES:S,}}},yes,}:${BRACES:S,}}},no,}}
    304 BOTH=	<${YES}> <${NO}>
    305 .if ${BOTH} != "<yes> <no>"
    306 .  error
    307 .endif
    308