About the SEH tests.
The tests are nice, but there are 2 things that makes me think the tests are cheating.

1.) All used variables are static. That means the optimizer is mostly out of the game. Is this planned to be a requirement (static or volatile variables)?
2.) The tests use return_positive() and return_zero() functions. Another way to stop the optimizer from doing his work, because function calls act as sequence points and the result isn't known at compile time. But this is far from practical. If you replace them with compiler constants, the optimizer will try to remove these assignmnents if possible.

So I did some testing. After removing the static, I got 1 error:
psehtest.c:2490: Test failed: test_continue_search_3 failed

After replacing the return_x, ... functions with macros I got 3 errors:
psehtest.c:2486: Test failed: test_continue_search_6 failed
psehtest.c:2486: Test failed: test_execute_handler_12 failed
psehtest.c:2486: Test failed: test_continue_execution_12 failed

Same with full and normal optimisation.

Timo

Aleksey Bragin schrieb:

Just wanted to tell this is a great work, and with such test suite we  
will always notice if something breaks.


WBR,
Aleksey Bragin.

On Dec 30, 2008, at 7:04 AM, hyperion@svn.reactos.org wrote:

Author: hyperion
Date: Mon Dec 29 22:04:51 2008
New Revision: 38461

URL: http://svn.reactos.org/svn/reactos?rev=38461&view=rev
Log:
modified   tests/pseh2/psehtest.c
   finally_13 test re-enabled, as it doesn't crash anymore
   finally_14 test fixed. Now we know how exceptions thrown in a  
__finally are supposed to be handled
   PSEH test suite now has 91 tests and passes all of them with  
both GCC and Visual C++

_______________________________________________
Ros-dev mailing list
Ros-dev@reactos.org
http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev