All the operands should be tagged `const`. We're only assigning them to variables so that we can compare them (e.g. check if left == right, etc.) and avoid evaluating expressions multiple times.
There's no need for them to be mutable.
Also rename the helper variable `loc` to `__loc` like we do with `__assertion` and `__strs` to avoid potential name collisions with user code.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov dlatypov@google.com --- Note: this patch is based on top of https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220125210011.3817742-4-dlatypov@google.com/ There is no semantic dependency between the patches, but they touch adjacent lines. --- include/kunit/test.h | 10 +++++----- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/kunit/test.h b/include/kunit/test.h index 088ff394ae94..00b9ff7783ab 100644 --- a/include/kunit/test.h +++ b/include/kunit/test.h @@ -779,10 +779,10 @@ void kunit_do_failed_assertion(struct kunit *test,
#define KUNIT_ASSERTION(test, assert_type, pass, assert_class, INITIALIZER, fmt, ...) do { \ if (unlikely(!(pass))) { \ - static const struct kunit_loc loc = KUNIT_CURRENT_LOC; \ + static const struct kunit_loc __loc = KUNIT_CURRENT_LOC; \ struct assert_class __assertion = INITIALIZER; \ kunit_do_failed_assertion(test, \ - &loc, \ + &__loc, \ assert_type, \ &__assertion.assert, \ fmt, \ @@ -872,8 +872,8 @@ void kunit_do_failed_assertion(struct kunit *test, fmt, \ ...) \ do { \ - typeof(left) __left = (left); \ - typeof(right) __right = (right); \ + const typeof(left) __left = (left); \ + const typeof(right) __right = (right); \ static const struct kunit_binary_assert_text __text = { \ .operation = #op, \ .left_text = #left, \ @@ -956,7 +956,7 @@ do { \ fmt, \ ...) \ do { \ - typeof(ptr) __ptr = (ptr); \ + const typeof(ptr) __ptr = (ptr); \ \ KUNIT_ASSERTION(test, \ assert_type, \
On Fri, Jan 28, 2022 at 5:52 AM Daniel Latypov dlatypov@google.com wrote:
All the operands should be tagged `const`. We're only assigning them to variables so that we can compare them (e.g. check if left == right, etc.) and avoid evaluating expressions multiple times.
There's no need for them to be mutable.
Also rename the helper variable `loc` to `__loc` like we do with `__assertion` and `__strs` to avoid potential name collisions with user code.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov dlatypov@google.com
Note: this patch is based on top of https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220125210011.3817742-4-dlatypov@google.com/ There is no semantic dependency between the patches, but they touch adjacent lines.
Looks good.
Reviewed-by: David Gow davidgow@google.com
Cheers, -- David
include/kunit/test.h | 10 +++++----- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/kunit/test.h b/include/kunit/test.h index 088ff394ae94..00b9ff7783ab 100644 --- a/include/kunit/test.h +++ b/include/kunit/test.h @@ -779,10 +779,10 @@ void kunit_do_failed_assertion(struct kunit *test,
#define KUNIT_ASSERTION(test, assert_type, pass, assert_class, INITIALIZER, fmt, ...) do { \ if (unlikely(!(pass))) { \
static const struct kunit_loc loc = KUNIT_CURRENT_LOC; \
static const struct kunit_loc __loc = KUNIT_CURRENT_LOC; \ struct assert_class __assertion = INITIALIZER; \ kunit_do_failed_assertion(test, \
&loc, \
&__loc, \ assert_type, \ &__assertion.assert, \ fmt, \@@ -872,8 +872,8 @@ void kunit_do_failed_assertion(struct kunit *test, fmt, \ ...) \ do { \
typeof(left) __left = (left); \typeof(right) __right = (right); \
const typeof(left) __left = (left); \const typeof(right) __right = (right); \ static const struct kunit_binary_assert_text __text = { \ .operation = #op, \ .left_text = #left, \@@ -956,7 +956,7 @@ do { \ fmt, \ ...) \ do { \
typeof(ptr) __ptr = (ptr); \
const typeof(ptr) __ptr = (ptr); \ \ KUNIT_ASSERTION(test, \ assert_type, \-- 2.35.0.rc2.247.g8bbb082509-goog
On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 4:52 PM Daniel Latypov dlatypov@google.com wrote:
All the operands should be tagged `const`. We're only assigning them to variables so that we can compare them (e.g. check if left == right, etc.) and avoid evaluating expressions multiple times.
There's no need for them to be mutable.
Agreed.
Also rename the helper variable `loc` to `__loc` like we do with `__assertion` and `__strs` to avoid potential name collisions with user code.
Probably not necessary since we create a new code block (we are inside of an if-statement, do-while-loop, etc), but I don't really care either way.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov dlatypov@google.com
Reviewed-by: Brendan Higgins brendanhiggins@google.com
On Fri, Jan 28, 2022 at 1:21 PM Brendan Higgins brendanhiggins@google.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 4:52 PM Daniel Latypov dlatypov@google.com wrote:
All the operands should be tagged `const`. We're only assigning them to variables so that we can compare them (e.g. check if left == right, etc.) and avoid evaluating expressions multiple times.
There's no need for them to be mutable.
Agreed.
Also rename the helper variable `loc` to `__loc` like we do with `__assertion` and `__strs` to avoid potential name collisions with user code.
Probably not necessary since we create a new code block (we are inside of an if-statement, do-while-loop, etc), but I don't really care either way.
You're totally right that this doesn't matter with our current macros.
given int loc = 42; KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE(test, loc); KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, loc, 42);
becomes do { if (__builtin_expect(!!(!(!!(loc) == !!true)), 0)) { /* we don't use the operands in here, so `loc` is fine */ static const struct kunit_loc loc = { .file = "lib/kunit/kunit-example-test.c", .line = 25 }; ... do { typeof(loc) __left = (loc); typeof(42) __right = (42); do { /* We never reference the expression again, so `loc` is fine */ if (__builtin_expect(!!(!(__left == __right)), 0)) { static const struct kunit_loc loc = { .file = "lib/kunit/kunit-example-test.c", .line = 24 };
But reminder: this was *not* the case until very recently. Sau we didn't have my earlier patch to move the `if(!(passed))` check into the macro. Then we'd have issues, e.g. ../lib/kunit/kunit-example-test.c: In function ‘example_simple_test’: ../include/kunit/test.h:828:26: error: wrong type argument to unary exclamation mark 828 | !!(condition) == !!expected_true, \ | ... ../lib/kunit/kunit-example-test.c:25:9: note: in expansion of macro ‘KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE’ 25 | KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE(test, loc); | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So being defensive here lets us change up our implementation more freely.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov dlatypov@google.com
Reviewed-by: Brendan Higgins brendanhiggins@google.com
linux-kselftest-mirror@lists.linaro.org
-
Brendan Higgins -
Daniel Latypov -
David Gow