forked from OSchip/llvm-project
7c02dc22e4
This patch provides `TYPED_TEST` and `TYPED_TEST_F` (similar in functionnality to gtest).
This is needed to extensively test building blocks for memory functions.
Example for `TYPED_TEST_F`:
```
template <typename T> class LlvmLibcMyTestFixture : public testing::Test {};
using Types = testing::TypeList<char, int, long>;
TYPED_TEST_F(LlvmLibcMyTestFixture, Simple, Types) {
EXPECT_LE(sizeof(ParamType), 8UL);
}
```
Example for `TYPED_TEST`:
```
using Types = testing::TypeList<char, int, long>;
TYPED_TEST(LlvmLibcMyTest, Simple, Types) {
EXPECT_LE(sizeof(ParamType), 8UL);
}
```
`ParamType` is displayed as fully qualified canonical type which can be difficult to read, the user can provide a more readable name by using the `REGISTER_TYPE_NAME` macro.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D100631
|
||
|---|---|---|
| .. | ||
| CMakeLists.txt | ||
| FuchsiaTest.h | ||
| LibcTest.cpp | ||
| LibcTest.h | ||
| README.md | ||
| Test.h | ||
README.md
The LLVM libc unit test framework
This directory contains a lightweight implementation of a gtest like unit test framework for LLVM libc.
Why not gtest?
While gtest is great, featureful and time tested, it uses the C and C++ standard libraries. Hence, using it to test LLVM libc (which is also an implementation of the C standard libraries) causes various kinds of mixup/conflict problems.
How is it different from gtest?
LLVM libc's unit test framework is much less featureful as compared to gtest. But, what is available strives to be exactly like gtest.
Will it be made as featureful as gtest in future?
It is not clear if LLVM libc needs/will need every feature of gtest. We only intend to extend it on an as needed basis. Hence, it might never be as featureful as gtest.