[libc] add IPV6 related macros

[c8ef]

No description provided.

[llvmbot]

@llvm/pr-subscribers-libc

Author: Connector Switch (c8ef)

Changes

---

Full diff: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/162219.diff

2 Files Affected:

• (modified) libc/include/llvm-libc-macros/netinet-in-macros.h (+8)
• (modified) libc/test/include/netinet_in_test.cpp (+10)

diff --git a/libc/include/llvm-libc-macros/netinet-in-macros.h b/libc/include/llvm-libc-macros/netinet-in-macros.h
index c05e5e2aec248..fb7564cee9e80 100644
--- a/libc/include/llvm-libc-macros/netinet-in-macros.h
+++ b/libc/include/llvm-libc-macros/netinet-in-macros.h
@@ -16,4 +16,12 @@
 #define IPPROTO_IPV6 41
 #define IPPROTO_RAW 255
 
+#define IPV6_UNICAST_HOPS 16
+#define IPV6_MULTICAST_IF 17
+#define IPV6_MULTICAST_HOPS 18
+#define IPV6_MULTICAST_LOOP 19
+#define IPV6_JOIN_GROUP 20
+#define IPV6_LEAVE_GROUP 21
+#define IPV6_V6ONLY 26
+
 #endif // LLVM_LIBC_MACROS_NETINET_IN_MACROS_H
diff --git a/libc/test/include/netinet_in_test.cpp b/libc/test/include/netinet_in_test.cpp
index a6c47a779ea44..714892f511b1c 100644
--- a/libc/test/include/netinet_in_test.cpp
+++ b/libc/test/include/netinet_in_test.cpp
@@ -17,3 +17,13 @@ TEST(LlvmLibcNetinetInTest, IPPROTOMacro) {
   EXPECT_EQ(IPPROTO_IPV6, 41);
   EXPECT_EQ(IPPROTO_RAW, 255);
 }
+
+TEST(LlvmLibcNetinetInTest, IPV6Macro) {
+  EXPECT_EQ(IPV6_UNICAST_HOPS, 16);
+  EXPECT_EQ(IPV6_MULTICAST_IF, 17);
+  EXPECT_EQ(IPV6_MULTICAST_HOPS, 18);
+  EXPECT_EQ(IPV6_MULTICAST_LOOP, 19);
+  EXPECT_EQ(IPV6_JOIN_GROUP, 20);
+  EXPECT_EQ(IPV6_LEAVE_GROUP, 21);
+  EXPECT_EQ(IPV6_V6ONLY, 26);
+}

[michaelrj-google]

I'm not sure if the test is necessary for the macros, given that they're only checking that the value hasn't changed.

[c8ef]

I'm not sure if the test is necessary for the macros, given that they're only checking that the value hasn't changed.

At least it is a place to double-check the initial value? I am fine with keeping it or removing it.

[c8ef]

Gentle ping~

(Perhaps we could use #ifdef to test these macros, or the current approach is enough?)

[c8ef]

I plan to commit this for now. It follows the same implementation strategy as #161855. I am willing to make any necessary refinements afterwards.

[michaelrj-google]

Hi, yes this change is fine, sorry about missing the review. I still don't think the test is useful but we can change that in a followup.

If I'm not responding on github please ping me on discord, I get a lot of emails about pull requests and it can be hard to tell which are urgent.