[libc-commits] [PATCH] D121564: [libc] Let exhaustive tests indicate each interval PASSED/FAILED.

[Tue Ly via Phabricator via libc-commits]

lntue added inline comments.


================
Comment at: libc/utils/UnitTest/LibcTest.h:404
       return;                                                                  \
   } while (0)
 
----------------
sivachandra wrote:
> lntue wrote:
> > sivachandra wrote:
> > > To math the pattern of other `ASSERT_<>` macros, can we construct `ASSERT_THAT` using `EXPECT_THAT`?
> > Look like we need to have another patch to wrap other ASSERT_<> in `do { ... } while (0)` to make it not stealing `else` clause if being used inside other `if` statement.
> They are not compound statements so shouldn't require a `do {...} while (0)` treatment?
What I'm thinking is in the case that we have something like:
```
if (cond)
  ASSERT_<>(...);
else
  ASSERT_<>(...);
```
then without the `do { ... } while (0)` treatment, it will silently do the wrong branching due to the `else` is stolen from the first `ASSERT`.
Maybe we should not have that pattern but it might be inevitable sometime.


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D121564/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D121564