On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 10:43:15 +0800 Jakub Kicinski wrote: > I thought constructor priorities were specifically created to avoid the > problem you are seeing. What it is the point of constructor priorities > if not to order constructors??
Hi Jakub, You're right. Looking closer at the harness ctor ordering, the NULL comes from TEST_F() setting _##fixture##_##test##_object inside its constructor (after the mmap() allocation), while XFAIL_ADD() reads that pointer in its constructor. If XFAIL_ADD runs first, xfail->test can be NULL. Using constructor priorities should fix this cleanly by ordering the TEST_F registration ctor before XFAIL_ADD, without adding new fields or runtime lookups. I'll respin a v2 along those lines and drop the fallback approach. Thanks, sun jian
