That is my point:I think such a macro would make the overloading clearer (more visible). And I agree it can be done later. hence my reviews :-)
Christophe. On 14 October 2015 at 14:03, Stuart Haslam <stuart.has...@linaro.org> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 01:17:34PM +0200, Christophe Milard wrote: > > I have just reviewed the all series. As a side note though, I thing a > MACRO > > called ODP_TEST_OVERLOAD(test_func, new_test_func) should be defined if a > > given test function should be "replaced") using the update function. The > > TEST_INFO macro would not be able to be used as, for this macro, the > name > > of the test matches the name of the function and functions cannot be > > overloaded in C. > > I think that could be done in another patch, though. (hence my reviews) > > > > Do you agree Stuart? > > > > Replacing test functions can be done but it's a bit ugly as there's no > macro for doing it - see end of this mail - > > https://lists.linaro.org/pipermail/lng-odp/2015-September/015506.html > > I don't really have any objection to adding one but it can be done > later, nobody needs it right now. > > -- > Stuart. >
_______________________________________________ lng-odp mailing list lng-odp@lists.linaro.org https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/lng-odp
