Add UBENCH_ATTRIBUTE #27
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
Aye this seems harmless! Nice one! |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
After having had to debug UTEST code again, I realized that it having a UTEST_ATTRIBUTE macro was nicer to read than not having it. I realized that the macro was easier to remember and less error prone, because I didn't have to remember the correct syntax and I didn't have to double check everytime.
I had opened a PR on UTEST to remove the macro with the intent of uniformizing with UBENCH. If you agree, I would like to uniformize UBENCH with UTEST instead and give it its own UBENCH_ATTRIBUTE macro as well. I will close the other PR if you agree.
Note: while there is a single syntax that works everywhere ('__attribute' instead of '__attribute__'), I do like having both hidden behind the macro, because it remembered me about the difference between the two, it would be easy to forget why this change had to be made otherwise.