util: Add UTIL_LISTIFY test cases

[finikorg]

Added tests for UTIL_LISTIFY and corrected test name.

[zephyrbot]

All checks are passing now.

Review history of this comment for details about previous failed status.
Note that some checks might have not completed yet.

[codecov-io]

Codecov Report

Merging #13174 into master will increase coverage by 0.01%.
The diff coverage is n/a.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master   #13174      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   48.75%   48.76%   +0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         319      319              
  Lines       46871    46876       +5     
  Branches    10835    10840       +5     
==========================================
+ Hits        22850    22861      +11     
+ Misses      19394    19387       -7     
- Partials     4627     4628       +1

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
drivers/clock_control/nrf_power_clock.c	50% <0%> (-2.11%)	⬇️
boards/posix/nrf52_bsim/argparse.c	46.98% <0%> (+13.25%)	⬆️

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update acaae57...0ca9590. Read the comment docs.

[SebastianBoe]

An AFAICT equally[0] powerful mechanism is already present.

To reduce the amount of infrastructure, I believe it would be better to re-use what we have.

4dc9f86

[0] Actually, more flexible, as it doesn't require ';' to separate each element and is therefore more re-usable than LOOP.

[andyross]

Seems really clever. Random nitpikery.

[nordic-krch]

there is UTIL_LISTIFY macro. It looks that it's doing the same. Though, i must say that name is intuitive since it narrows down the use case.

[finikorg]

An AFAICT equally[0] powerful mechanism is already present.

To reduce the amount of infrastructure, I believe it would be better to re-use what we have.

4dc9f86

[0] Actually, more flexible, as it doesn't require ';' to separate each element and is therefore more re-usable than LOOP.

Thanks for notice, I will try to use UTIL_LISTIFY, could not understand what it does by description.

[SebastianBoe]

could not understand what it does by description.

Please do post a PR if you can find a better description.

[finikorg]

could not understand what it does by description.

Please do post a PR if you can find a better description.

I started to use UTIL_LISTIFY but it requires to add ; and I have warnings

[SebastianBoe]

but it requires to add ;``

Yes it does, but this is an acceptable price to pay to not have to maintain two macros that nearly do the same thing.

LOOP()
LOOP_WITHOUT_SEMICOLON()

What kind of warnings?

[finikorg]

What kind of warnings?

Check warnings in this PR.

[SebastianBoe]

Check warnings in this PR.

Not sure how, "Details" doesn't give any more details.

Anyhow, these macro's often violate the static analyzer's rules, I believe a maintainer usually ignores the rule and merges it anyway.

EDIT: Maybe it is this: #13174 (comment)

[SebastianBoe]

This error seems reasonable to me:

-:13: ERROR:MULTISTATEMENT_MACRO_USE_DO_WHILE: Macros with multiple statements should be enclosed in a do - while loop

do { i += x; } while(0);

[finikorg]

This error seems reasonable to me:

-:13: ERROR:MULTISTATEMENT_MACRO_USE_DO_WHILE: Macros with multiple statements should be enclosed in a do - while loop

do { i += x; } while(0);

-:10: WARNING:SINGLE_STATEMENT_DO_WHILE_MACRO: Single statement macros should not use a do {} while (0) loop
#10: FILE: tests/misc/util/src/main.c:63:
+#define INC(x, _) do { i += x; } while (0);

[SebastianBoe]

Can't catch a break ...

I don't know how to resolve the warnings.

[nashif]

@SebastianBoe

Not sure how, "Details" doesn't give any more details.

find first comment by zephyrbot, browse through the history of the comment.