IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO GET AN ACCOUNT, please write an
email to Administrator. User accounts are meant only to access repo
and report issues and/or generate pull requests.
This is a purpose-specific Git hosting for
BaseALT
projects. Thank you for your understanding!
Только зарегистрированные пользователи имеют доступ к сервису!
Для получения аккаунта, обратитесь к администратору.
This is per Linus's suggestion in [1].
The issue there is that every KUNIT_EXPECT/KUNIT_ASSERT puts a
kunit_assert object onto the stack. Normally we rely on compilers to
elide this, but when that doesn't work out, this blows up the stack
usage of kunit test functions.
We can move some data off the stack by making it static.
This change introduces a new `struct kunit_loc` to hold the file and
line number and then just passing assert_type (EXPECT or ASSERT) as an
argument.
In [1], it was suggested to also move out the format string as well, but
users could theoretically craft a format string at runtime, so we can't.
This change leaves a copy of `assert_type` in kunit_assert for now
because cleaning up all the macros to not pass it around is a bit more
involved.
Here's an example of the expanded code for KUNIT_FAIL():
if (__builtin_expect(!!(!(false)), 0)) {
static const struct kunit_loc loc = { .file = ... };
struct kunit_fail_assert __assertion = { .assert = { .type ... };
kunit_do_failed_assertion(test, &loc, KUNIT_EXPECTATION, &__assertion.assert, ...);
};
[1] https://groups.google.com/g/kunit-dev/c/i3fZXgvBrfA/m/VULQg1z6BAAJ
Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com>
Suggested-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Reviewed-by: David Gow <davidgow@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>
21957f90b2