Return to Answer

replaced http://stackoverflow.com/ with https://stackoverflow.com/

Source Link

edited May 23, 2017 at 11:33

Community Bot

edited May 23, 2017 at 11:33

Community Bot

Some ideas:

I'd try encapsulating the position and mask parameters to one parameter. Maybe a struct would be fine for this. It is easy to mix up the parameters of ret, for example, somebody could call it accidentally with
```
 `ret(output, secondnum_pos, firstnum_mask)` 
```

or with

 `ret(output, firstnum_mask, firstnum_pos)`.

(Note the parameter order.)

Consider writing tests which store the i, j, k values in different order. Currently they do not detect if storing at the firstnum_pos overrides the second or the third values.
Consider making copies of i, j and k for the assert calls before you call the marcos. If a macro accidentally changes values of i, j or k the assert will not detect it.
A unit testing framework would be better for the testing: Unit Testing C Code Unit Testing C Code

Some ideas:

I'd try encapsulating the position and mask parameters to one parameter. Maybe a struct would be fine for this. It is easy to mix up the parameters of ret, for example, somebody could call it accidentally with
```
 `ret(output, secondnum_pos, firstnum_mask)` 
```

or with

 `ret(output, firstnum_mask, firstnum_pos)`.

(Note the parameter order.)

Consider writing tests which store the i, j, k values in different order. Currently they do not detect if storing at the firstnum_pos overrides the second or the third values.
Consider making copies of i, j and k for the assert calls before you call the marcos. If a macro accidentally changes values of i, j or k the assert will not detect it.
A unit testing framework would be better for the testing: Unit Testing C Code

Some ideas:

I'd try encapsulating the position and mask parameters to one parameter. Maybe a struct would be fine for this. It is easy to mix up the parameters of ret, for example, somebody could call it accidentally with
```
 `ret(output, secondnum_pos, firstnum_mask)` 
```

or with

 `ret(output, firstnum_mask, firstnum_pos)`.

(Note the parameter order.)

Consider writing tests which store the i, j, k values in different order. Currently they do not detect if storing at the firstnum_pos overrides the second or the third values.
Consider making copies of i, j and k for the assert calls before you call the marcos. If a macro accidentally changes values of i, j or k the assert will not detect it.
A unit testing framework would be better for the testing: Unit Testing C Code

deleted 15 characters in body

Source Link

edited Jun 10, 2012 at 9:47

palacsint

edited Jun 10, 2012 at 9:47

palacsint

30.4k
9
82
157

It looks fine. Some ideas:

I'd try encapsulating the position and mask parameters to one parameter. Maybe a struct would be fine for this. It is easy to mix up the parameters of ret, for example, somebody could call it accidentally with
```
 `ret(output, secondnum_pos, firstnum_mask)` 
```

or with

 `ret(output, firstnum_mask, firstnum_pos)`.

(Note the parameter order.)

Consider writing tests which store the i, j, k values in different order. Currently they do not detect if storing at the firstnum_pos overrides the second or the third values.
Consider making copies of i, j and k for the assert calls before you call the marcos. If a macro accidentally changes values of i, j or k the assert will not detect it.
A unit testing framework would be better for the testing: Unit Testing C Code

It looks fine. Some ideas:

I'd try encapsulating the position and mask parameters to one parameter. Maybe a struct would be fine for this. It is easy to mix up the parameters of ret, for example, somebody could call it accidentally with
```
 `ret(output, secondnum_pos, firstnum_mask)` 
```

or with

 `ret(output, firstnum_mask, firstnum_pos)`.

(Note the parameter order.)

Consider writing tests which store the i, j, k values in different order. Currently they do not detect if storing at the firstnum_pos overrides the second or the third values.
Consider making copies of i, j and k for the assert calls before you call the marcos. If a macro accidentally changes values of i, j or k the assert will not detect it.
A unit testing framework would be better for the testing: Unit Testing C Code

Some ideas:

I'd try encapsulating the position and mask parameters to one parameter. Maybe a struct would be fine for this. It is easy to mix up the parameters of ret, for example, somebody could call it accidentally with
```
 `ret(output, secondnum_pos, firstnum_mask)` 
```

or with

 `ret(output, firstnum_mask, firstnum_pos)`.

(Note the parameter order.)

Consider writing tests which store the i, j, k values in different order. Currently they do not detect if storing at the firstnum_pos overrides the second or the third values.
Consider making copies of i, j and k for the assert calls before you call the marcos. If a macro accidentally changes values of i, j or k the assert will not detect it.
A unit testing framework would be better for the testing: Unit Testing C Code

Source Link

answered Jun 9, 2012 at 21:53

palacsint

answered Jun 9, 2012 at 21:53

palacsint

30.4k
9
82
157

It looks fine. Some ideas:

I'd try encapsulating the position and mask parameters to one parameter. Maybe a struct would be fine for this. It is easy to mix up the parameters of ret, for example, somebody could call it accidentally with
```
 `ret(output, secondnum_pos, firstnum_mask)` 
```

or with

 `ret(output, firstnum_mask, firstnum_pos)`.

(Note the parameter order.)

Consider writing tests which store the i, j, k values in different order. Currently they do not detect if storing at the firstnum_pos overrides the second or the third values.
Consider making copies of i, j and k for the assert calls before you call the marcos. If a macro accidentally changes values of i, j or k the assert will not detect it.
A unit testing framework would be better for the testing: Unit Testing C Code

lang-c