From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Remy Horton <remy.horton@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/4] Use Google Test as DPDK unit test framework
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2016 15:54:00 +0100
Message-ID: <e92e39b2-35c5-7f9e-992a-da0de5716ee7@intel.com>
References: <1470170269-20721-1-git-send-email-declan.doherty@intel.com>
 <5511822.hGlaykcsx3@xps13>
 <345C63BAECC1AD42A2EC8C63AFFC3ADC2829180F@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com>
 <e4d4d6e8-371a-8f79-325f-8b312b4cd263@sts.kz>
 <ace2ff33-de0d-4b3b-f22b-e3af57cf5fba@intel.com>
 <20160805125952.GA22528@hmsreliant.think-freely.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Yerden Zhumabekov <e_zhumabekov@sts.kz>,
 "Doherty, Declan" <declan.doherty@intel.com>,
 Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>, "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
To: Neil Horman <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mga01.intel.com (mga01.intel.com [192.55.52.88])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0CA82951
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Fri,  5 Aug 2016 16:54:03 +0200 (CEST)
In-Reply-To: <20160805125952.GA22528@hmsreliant.think-freely.org>
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>


On 05/08/2016 13:59, Neil Horman wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 05, 2016 at 10:11:56AM +0100, Remy Horton wrote:
[..]
>> Cmocka's mocking relies on Gnu ld's --wrap feature, which has problems if
>> the function being mocked is defined in the same compilation unit that it is
>> used. Pity really as otherwise it looked quite good to me.
>>
> Can't you use ld's --undefined option to get the correct behavior?  I thought
> that was specifically what it was there for.

Not sure - I'll try playing around with it when I next have some spare 
time.. :)

The C-Mock extension (https://github.com/hjagodzinski/C-Mock) for GMock 
uses some dynamic linker trickery which I'm guessing is probably not C++ 
specific, and I quite like that approach as it avoids the need to 
pre-specify in makefiles which functions are to be mocked.

..Remy