On Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 9:13 PM David Gow <davidgow@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> +#define kunit_activate_static_stub(test, real_fn_addr, replacement_addr) do { \
> + typecheck(typeof(real_fn_addr), replacement_addr); \
We can't call this macro in the same scope for functions w/ different
signatures.
E.g. if we add this func to the example test
static void other_func(void) {}
then trying to call kunit_activate_static_stub() on it in the same
test case, we get
./include/linux/typecheck.h:10:14: error: conflicting types for
‘__dummy’; have ‘void(void)’
10 | ({ type __dummy; \
| ^~~~~~~
./include/kunit/static_stub.h:99:9: note: in expansion of macro ‘typecheck’
99 | typecheck(typeof(real_fn_addr), replacement_addr);
\
| ^~~~~~~~~
lib/kunit/example-test.c:64:9: note: in expansion of macro
‘kunit_activate_static_stub’
64 | kunit_activate_static_stub(test, other_func, other_func);
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
./include/linux/typecheck.h:10:14: note: previous declaration of
‘__dummy’ with type ‘int(int)’
10 | ({ type __dummy; \
| ^~~~~~~
./include/kunit/static_stub.h:99:9: note: in expansion of macro ‘typecheck’
99 | typecheck(typeof(real_fn_addr), replacement_addr);
\
| ^~~~~~~~~
lib/kunit/example-test.c:62:9: note: in expansion of macro
‘kunit_activate_static_stub’
62 | kunit_activate_static_stub(test, add_one, subtract_one);
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Afaict, the problem is that GCC thinks we're declaring a *function*
called __dummy, not a variable.
So it bleeds across the scope boundary of do-while unlike normal variables.
There's the typecheck_fn macro, but it doesn't work either.
