On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 07:31:42PM -0700, Bill Wendling wrote:
> Use a list of expected values instead of printing out numbers, which
> aren't very meaningful. This prints only if the expected and actual
> values differ.
>
> Signed-off-by: Bill Wendling <morbo@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> x86/setjmp.c | 19 +++++++++++++++----
> 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/x86/setjmp.c b/x86/setjmp.c
> index 976a632..c0b25ec 100644
> --- a/x86/setjmp.c
> +++ b/x86/setjmp.c
> @@ -1,19 +1,30 @@
> #include "libcflat.h"
> #include "setjmp.h"
>
> +int expected[] = {
This should be 'static const'.
> + 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
> +};
> +
> +#define NUM_EXPECTED (sizeof(expected) / sizeof(int))
How about NUM_LONGJMPS? And you can use ARRAY_SIZE.
> +
> int main(void)
> {
> - volatile int i;
> + volatile int i = -1, index = 0;
> + volatile bool had_errors = false;
> jmp_buf j;
>
> if (setjmp(j) == 0) {
> i = 0;
> }
> - printf("%d\n", i);
> - if (++i < 10) {
> + if (expected[index++] != i) {
> + printf("FAIL: actual %d / expected %d\n", i, expected[index]);
This will print the wrong expected value on failure since index was
incremented above.
> + had_errors = true;
> + }
had_errors seems like overkill. If we fail once, what's the pointing of
continuing on?
> + if (index < NUM_EXPECTED) {
> + i++;
> longjmp(j, 1);
> }
And we should pass i to longjmp(), otherwise there isn't really any point
to having separate index and i variables, e.g.:
volatile int index = 0;
jmp_buf j;
int i;
i = setjmp(j);
if (expected[index] != i) {
printf("FAIL: actual %d / expected %d\n", i, expected[index]);
return -1;
}
index++;
if (i < NUM_LONGJMPS)
longjmp(jmp_buf, i + 1);
return 0;
>
> - printf("done\n");
> + printf("Test %s\n", had_errors ? "FAILED" : "PASSED");
> return 0;
> }
> --
> 2.23.0.162.g0b9fbb3734-goog
>
