+static unsigned exam_sqrfree(void)
+{
+ unsigned result = 0;
+ symbol x("x"), y("y");
+ ex e1, e2;
+
+ e1 = (1+x)*pow((2+x),2)*pow((3+x),3)*pow((4+x),4);
+ e2 = sqrfree(expand(e1),lst(x));
+ if (e1 != e2) {
+ clog << "sqrfree(expand(" << e1 << ")) erroneously returned "
+ << e2 << endl;
+ ++result;
+ }
+
+ e1 = (x+y)*pow((x+2*y),2)*pow((x+3*y),3)*pow((x+4*y),4);
+ e2 = sqrfree(expand(e1));
+ if (e1 != e2) {
+ clog << "sqrfree(expand(" << e1 << ")) erroneously returned "
+ << e2 << endl;
+ ++result;
+ }
+ e2 = sqrfree(expand(e1),lst(x));
+ if (e1 != e2) {
+ clog << "sqrfree(expand(" << e1 << "),[x]) erroneously returned "
+ << e2 << endl;
+ ++result;
+ }
+ e2 = sqrfree(expand(e1),lst(y));
+ if (e1 != e2) {
+ clog << "sqrfree(expand(" << e1 << "),[y]) erroneously returned "
+ << e2 << endl;
+ ++result;
+ }
+ e2 = sqrfree(expand(e1),lst(x,y));
+ if (e1 != e2) {
+ clog << "sqrfree(expand(" << e1 << "),[x,y]) erroneously returned "
+ << e2 << endl;
+ ++result;
+ }
+
+ return result;
+}
+
+/* Arithmetic Operators should behave just as one expects from built-in types.
+ * When somebody screws up the operators this routine will most probably fail
+ * to compile. Unfortunately we can only test the stuff that is allowed, not
+ * what is forbidden (e.g. e1+e2 = 42) since that must not compile. :-( */
+static unsigned exam_operator_semantics(void)
+{
+ unsigned result = 0;
+ ex e1, e2;
+ int i1, i2;
+
+ // Assignment should not return const ex though it may be obfuscated:
+ e1 = 7; e2 = 4;
+ i1 = 7; i2 = 4;
+ (e1 = e2) = 2;
+ (i1 = i2) = 2;
+ if (e1!=i1 || e2!=i2) {
+ clog << "Semantics of ex::operator=() screwed." << endl;
+ ++result;
+ }
+ (e1 += e2) = 2;
+ (i1 += i2) = 2;
+ if (e1!=i1 || e2!=i2) {
+ clog << "Semantics of ex::operator=() screwed." << endl;
+ ++result;
+ }
+ (e1 -= e2) = 2;
+ (i1 -= i2) = 2;
+ if (e1!=i1 || e2!=i2) {
+ clog << "Semantics of ex::operator=() screwed." << endl;
+ ++result;
+ }
+
+ // Prefix/postfix increment/decrement behaviour:
+ e1 = 7; e2 = 4;
+ i1 = 7; i2 = 4;
+ e1 = (--e2 = 2)++;
+ i1 = (--i2 = 2)++;
+ if (e1!=i1 || e2!=i2) {
+ clog << "Semantics of increment/decrement operators screwed." << endl;
+ ++result;
+ }
+ e1 = (++e2 = 2)--;
+ i1 = (++i2 = 2)--;
+ if (e1!=i1 || e2!=i2) {
+ clog << "Semantics of increment/decrement operators screwed." << endl;
+ ++result;
+ }
+
+ // prefix increment/decrement must return an lvalue (contrary to postfix):
+ e1 = 7; e2 = 4;
+ i1 = 7; i2 = 4;
+ --++----e1; ++(++++++++(++++e2));
+ --++----i1; ++(++++++++(++++i2));
+ if (e1!=i1 || e2!=i2) {
+ clog << "Semantics of prefix increment/decrement operators screwed." << endl;
+ ++result;
+ }
+
+ // This one has a good chance of detecting problems in self-assignment:
+ // (which incidentally was severely broken from version 0.7.3 to 0.8.2).
+ ex selfprobe = numeric("65536");
+ selfprobe = selfprobe;
+ if (!is_exactly_a<numeric>(selfprobe)) {
+ clog << "ex (of numeric) after self-assignment became " << selfprobe << endl;
+ ++result;
+ }
+
+ return result;
+}
+
+/* This checks whether subs() works as intended in some special cases. */
+static unsigned exam_subs(void)
+{
+ unsigned result = 0;
+ symbol x("x");
+ ex e1, e2;
+
+ // This used to fail in GiNaC 1.0.5 because it first substituted
+ // x+1 -> (x-1)+1 -> x, and then substituted again x -> x-1, giving
+ // the wrong result
+ e1 = x+1;
+ e2 = e1.subs(x == x-1);
+ if (!e2.is_equal(x)) {
+ clog << "(x+1).subs(x==x-1) erroneously returned " << e2 << " instead of x" << endl;
+ ++result;
+ }
+
+ e1 = sin(1+sin(x));
+ e2 = e1.subs(sin(wild()) == cos(wild()));
+ if (!e2.is_equal(cos(1+cos(x)))) {
+ clog << "sin(1+sin(x)).subs(sin($1)==cos($1)) erroneously returned " << e2 << " instead of cos(1+cos(x))" << endl;
+ ++result;
+ }
+
+ return result;
+}
+