From: Maarten B. <sou...@ds...> - 2012-03-29 07:08:15
|
Hi Philippe, I was wondering why all gcc-torture-execute tests that you added recently have this construction: if (!some_test) ASSERT(0); This defies half the purpose of the ASSERT macro: counting the tests and reporting what exactly failed. As it is now most tests report that nothing was tested. And when it does fail it only states that '0' failed so you have to find the cause by line number instead of text. Is there a special reason why you do not use: ASSERT (some_test); If there is none, please modify accordingly. Greetings, Maarten |
From: Philipp K. K. <pk...@sp...> - 2012-03-29 07:44:59
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 29.03.2012 08:52, Maarten Brock wrote: > Hi Philippe, > > I was wondering why all gcc-torture-execute tests that you added > recently have this construction: > > if (!some_test) ASSERT(0); > > This defies half the purpose of the ASSERT macro: counting the > tests and reporting what exactly failed. As it is now most tests > report that nothing was tested. And when it does fail it only > states that '0' failed so you have to find the cause by line number > instead of text. Is there a special reason why you do not use: > > ASSERT (some_test); > > If there is none, please modify accordingly. > > Greetings, Maarten I tried to keep the tests as close to the original as possible. gcc doesn't use an ASSERT() macro in its test suite. Instead, it calls abort() to signal failure. So I just replaced all calls to abort() by ASSERT(0). Philipp -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk90Eu4ACgkQbtUV+xsoLpr2jgCfazTBy19ladLxdGaQQI6xofey 9BAAoMoSJ/JByKlw9G/4MN/rV1CRR/Fw =UqBN -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |