From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Luc Van Oostenryck Subject: [PATCH v2 1/5] replace test for c99 for-loop initializers Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2017 08:20:48 +0100 Message-ID: <20170220072052.2429-2-luc.vanoostenryck@gmail.com> References: <1ebf742e-5680-4160-6dc5-808fcfb5cc44@ramsayjones.plus.com> <20170220072052.2429-1-luc.vanoostenryck@gmail.com> Return-path: Received: from mail-wm0-f66.google.com ([74.125.82.66]:35901 "EHLO mail-wm0-f66.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750920AbdBTHcV (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Feb 2017 02:32:21 -0500 Received: by mail-wm0-f66.google.com with SMTP id r18so12712901wmd.3 for ; Sun, 19 Feb 2017 23:32:20 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20170220072052.2429-1-luc.vanoostenryck@gmail.com> Sender: linux-sparse-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org To: linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org Cc: Christopher Li , Ramsay Jones , Luc Van Oostenryck 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 Test-case-for: ed73fd32 ("linearize: Emit C99 declarations correctly") Replaces: 0e91f878 ("validation: Check C99 for loop variables") Signed-off-by: Luc Van Oostenryck --- validation/c99-for-loop.c | 36 ++++++++++++------------------------ 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-) diff --git a/validation/c99-for-loop.c b/validation/c99-for-loop.c index 42246c513..427fde268 100644 --- a/validation/c99-for-loop.c +++ b/validation/c99-for-loop.c @@ -1,33 +1,21 @@ -int op(int); - -static int good(void) +int c99(void); +int c99(void) { - __context__(1); - for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++) { - if (!op(i)) { - __context__(-1); - return 0; - } - } - __context__(-1); - return 1; -} + int r = -1; -static int bad(void) -{ - __context__(1); for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++) { - if (!op(i)) { - __context__(-1); - return 0; - } + r = i; } - return 1; + + return r; } + /* * check-name: C99 for loop variable declaration + * check-command: test-linearize $file * - * check-error-start -c99-for-loop.c:16:12: warning: context imbalance in 'bad' - different lock contexts for basic block - * check-error-end + * check-output-ignore + * check-output-contains: phisrc\\. + * check-output-contains: phi\\. + * check-output-contains: add\\. */ -- 2.11.0