On Wed, Feb 17, 2021 at 00:51:03 +0100, Roland Illig wrote: > 17.02.2021 00:25:10 Valery Ushakov <u...@stderr.spb.ru>: > > On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 23:54:46 +0100, Roland Illig wrote: > >> Yes, it does. That's what the "#undef __NO_STRICT_ALIGNMENT" in the > >> test is for. > >> > >> I intentionally placed it between <sys/types.h> (which defines that > >> macro on x86 and some other platforms) and <sys/param.h> (which uses the > >> macro to switch between the boring "everything is correctly aligned" and > >> the more interesting formula suggested here. > > > > This is wrong on so many levels. What is even the point of a test > > that doesn't test the thing as it is actually defined and used in the > > code? > > The point of the test is to verify that the "complicated" formula > produces correct results. That's what several commits tried to > fix. If this test had been there from the beginning, none of the > wrong formulas would have passed it. That's the whole point. > > The point of the test was intentionally not to test the actual > behavior on each platform but to test the same formula, independent > from the platform, and to do this, I somehow needed access to that > formula. Testing the actually used formula per platform could be > added as another test. I just wanted to avoid the obviously wrong > formulas to go unnoticed in the code. That's the point of the test, > and that's exactly what it achieves. Therefore I don't see anything > wrong with it.
The very fact that you need to undefine an unspecified macro at an unspecified time to get to the "formula" points to a problem. We shouldn't be pretending that it's not, and provide the false decorum of "oh, but it's covered with a test, so it's ok". -uwe
