On 20/02/17 07:20, Luc Van Oostenryck wrote:
> This test is to insure that a for-loop with C99-style initializer
> linearize correctly: the same as a C89-style one (modulo any effect
> on the scope of the variables). For example that code like:
> for (int = 0; i < 10; i++)
> do_stuff(i);
> is linearized the same as code like:
> int i;
> for (i = 0; i < 10; i++)
> do_stuff(i);
>
> A test for this already exist in the testsuite:
> 0e91f878 ("validation: Check C99 for loop variables")
> which show the correctness of the fix::
> ed73fd32 ("linearize: Emit C99 declarations correctly")
> But this test is an indirect one, using the presence or absence of
> warning about context imbalance to show that some part of code is
> present or not.
>
> Now that we have the minimal tools to test the output of
> test-linearize, use them to replace the test by a direct one.
>
> Note: ideally we would like to show that the C89 & the C99 version
> generate the same code but the testsuie deosn't allow this (yet).
>
> CC: Ramsay Jones <ramsay@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Test-case-for: ed73fd32 ("linearize: Emit C99 declarations correctly")
> Replaces: 0e91f878 ("validation: Check C99 for loop variables")
> Signed-off-by: Luc Van Oostenryck <luc.vanoostenryck@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
Yep, much better. Thanks!
ATB,
Ramsay Jones
[resent to the mailinglist]
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sparse" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
