1 files changed, 100 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/src/pal/tests/palsuite/miscellaneous/InterlockedCompareExchange/test1/test.cpp b/src/pal/tests/palsuite/miscellaneous/InterlockedCompareExchange/test1/test.cpp
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000..77f2c4c449
--- /dev/null
+++ b/src/pal/tests/palsuite/miscellaneous/InterlockedCompareExchange/test1/test.cpp
@@ -0,0 +1,100 @@
+// Licensed to the .NET Foundation under one or more agreements.
+// The .NET Foundation licenses this file to you under the MIT license.
+// See the LICENSE file in the project root for more information.
+
+/*============================================================
+**
+** Source : test.c
+**
+** Purpose: Test for InterlockedCompareExchange() function
+**
+**
+**=========================================================*/
+
+/* This test is FINISHED.  Note:  The biggest feature of this function is that
+   it locks the value before it increments it -- in order to make it so only
+   one thread can access it.  But, I really don't have a great test to make 
+   sure it's thread safe.  Any ideas?
+*/
+
+#include <palsuite.h>
+
+#define START_VALUE 0
+#define SECOND_VALUE 5
+#define THIRD_VALUE 10
+
+int __cdecl main(int argc, char *argv[]) {
+  
+    int BaseVariableToManipulate = START_VALUE;
+    int ValueToExchange = SECOND_VALUE;
+    int TempValue;
+    int TheReturn;
+  
+    /*
+     * Initialize the PAL and return FAILURE if this fails
+     */
+
+    if(0 != (PAL_Initialize(argc, argv)))
+    {
+        return FAIL;
+    }
+
+    /* Compare START_VALUE with BaseVariableToManipulate, they're equal, 
+       so exchange 
+    */
+  
+    TheReturn = InterlockedCompareExchange(
+        &BaseVariableToManipulate, /* Destination */
+        ValueToExchange,           /* Exchange value */
+        START_VALUE);              /* Compare value */
+  
+    /* Exchanged, these should be equal now */
+    if(BaseVariableToManipulate != ValueToExchange) 
+    {
+        Fail("ERROR: A successful compare and exchange should have occurred, "
+             "making the variable have the value of %d, as opposed to the "
+             "current value of %d.",
+             ValueToExchange,BaseVariableToManipulate);  
+    }
+  
+    /* Check to make sure it returns the original number which 
+       'BaseVariableToManipulate' was set to.  
+    */
+    if(TheReturn != START_VALUE) 
+    {
+        Fail("ERROR: The return value after the first exchange should be the "
+             "former value of the variable, which was %d, but it is now %d.",
+             START_VALUE,TheReturn);
+    }
+
+
+  
+    ValueToExchange = THIRD_VALUE;         /* Give this a new value */
+    TempValue = BaseVariableToManipulate;  /* Note value of Base */
+  
+    /* 
+       Do an exchange where 'BaseVariableToManipulate' doesn't 
+       match -- therefore the exchange shouldn't happen.  
+       So, it should end up the same as the 'TempValue' we saved.
+    */ 
+  
+    InterlockedCompareExchange(&BaseVariableToManipulate,
+                               ValueToExchange,
+                               START_VALUE);
+  
+    if(BaseVariableToManipulate != TempValue) 
+    {
+        Fail("ERROR:  An attempted exchange should have failed due to "
+             "the compare failing.  But, it seems to have succeeded.  The "
+             "value should be %d but is %d in this case.",
+             TempValue,BaseVariableToManipulate);  
+    }
+    
+    PAL_Terminate();
+    return PASS; 
+} 
+
+
+
+
+