It's a fairly straightforward port of `musl`'s `rintl`, like `rint` and `rintf` were. `libc-test` tests for `rintl` are uncommented since they're now passing.
I've also covered special cases for `rint` with tests, and broke down the current `rint` and `modf` test declarations into multiple -- so each libc function get its own test declaration at the very least.
Contributes to #30978
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/ziglang/zig/pulls/31791
Reviewed-by: Andrew Kelley <andrew@ziglang.org>
Before:
* test-zigc: run libzigc unit tests (part of test-modules)
* test-libc: run libc-test cases
Now:
* test-libc: run libc API unit tests (part of test-modules)
* test-libc-nsz: run libc-test cases
libc API unit tests (previously referred to as libzigc unit tests) now run for
all supported targets, even those we don't provide libzigc for. The idea is that
this will help us catch bad assumptions in the unit tests, as well as bugs in
other libcs.
I considered this setup:
* test-c: run libc API unit tests (part of test-modules)
* test-libc-nsz: run libc-test cases
* test-libc: both of the above
However, I do not like it because it gives a false sense of security; the full
module and C ABI test suites are still liable to catch libzigc bugs that test-c
and test-libc-nsz might not. So contributors should just run the test steps
outlined in https://codeberg.org/ziglang/zig/issues/30978.
Co-authored-by: rpkak <rpkak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Matthew Lugg