On Fri, 16 May 2025, Alejandro Colomar wrote: > Hmmm, I've been trying to find a compromise between readability and > simplicity, and I think I have something. I've seen some tests that > define assert() themselves. I like assert(3) because it's more > readable compared to a conditional plus abort(3). > > So, how do you feel about the following change? > > diff --git i/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/countof-stdcountof.c > w/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/countof-stdcountof.c > index a7fe4079c69..2fb0c6306ef 100644 > --- i/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/countof-stdcountof.c > +++ w/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/countof-stdcountof.c > @@ -3,8 +3,7 @@ > > #include <stdcountof.h> > > -#undef NDEBUG > -#include <assert.h> > +#define assert(e) ((e) ? (void) 0 : __builtin_abort ())
Yes, I think that's a reasonable way for a test to do its assertions with assert syntax but without depending unnecessarily on libc headers. -- Joseph S. Myers josmy...@redhat.com
