ceedling 0.28.3 → 0.29.0

data/vendor/cmock/vendor/c_exception/docs/ThrowTheSwitchCodingStandard.md

@@ -1,207 +1,207 @@
-# ThrowTheSwitch.org Coding Standard
-
-Hi. Welcome to the coding standard for ThrowTheSwitch.org. For the most part,
-we try to follow these standards to unify our contributors' code into a cohesive
-unit (puns intended). You might find places where these standards aren't
-followed. We're not perfect. Please be polite where you notice these discrepancies
-and we'll try to be polite when we notice yours.
-
-;)
-
-
-## Why Have A Coding Standard?
-
-Being consistent makes code easier to understand. We've made an attempt to keep
-our standard simple because we also believe that we can only expect someone to
-follow something that is understandable. Please do your best.
-
-
-## Our Philosophy
-
-Before we get into details on syntax, let's take a moment to talk about our
-vision for these tools. We're C developers and embedded software developers.
-These tools are great to test any C code, but catering to embedded software has
-made us more tolerant of compiler quirks. There are a LOT of quirky compilers
-out there. By quirky I mean "doesn't follow standards because they feel like
-they have a license to do as they wish."
-
-Our philosophy is "support every compiler we can". Most often, this means that
-we aim for writing C code that is standards compliant (often C89... that seems
-to be a sweet spot that is almost always compatible). But it also means these
-tools are tolerant of things that aren't common. Some that aren't even
-compliant. There are configuration options to override the size of standard
-types. There are configuration options to force Unity to not use certain
-standard library functions. A lot of Unity is configurable and we have worked
-hard to make it not TOO ugly in the process.
-
-Similarly, our tools that parse C do their best. They aren't full C parsers
-(yet) and, even if they were, they would still have to accept non-standard
-additions like gcc extensions or specifying `@0x1000` to force a variable to
-compile to a particular location. It's just what we do, because we like
-everything to Just Work™.
-
-Speaking of having things Just Work™, that's our second philosophy. By that, we
-mean that we do our best to have EVERY configuration option have a logical
-default. We believe that if you're working with a simple compiler and target,
-you shouldn't need to configure very much... we try to make the tools guess as
-much as they can, but give the user the power to override it when it's wrong.
-
-
-## Naming Things
-
-Let's talk about naming things. Programming is all about naming things. We name
-files, functions, variables, and so much more. While we're not always going to
-find the best name for something, we actually put quite a bit of effort into
-finding *What Something WANTS to be Called*™.
-
-When naming things, we more or less follow this hierarchy, the first being the
-most important to us (but we do all four whenever possible):
-1. Readable
-2. Descriptive
-3. Consistent
-4. Memorable
-
-
-#### Readable
-
-We want to read our code. This means we like names and flow that are more
-naturally read. We try to avoid double negatives. We try to avoid cryptic
-abbreviations (sticking to ones we feel are common).
-
-
-#### Descriptive
-
-We like descriptive names for things, especially functions and variables.
-Finding the right name for something is an important endeavor. You might notice
-from poking around our code that this often results in names that are a little
-longer than the average. Guilty. We're okay with a tiny bit more typing if it
-means our code is easier to understand.
-
-There are two exceptions to this rule that we also stick to as religiously as
-possible:
-
-First, while we realize hungarian notation (and similar systems for encoding
-type information into variable names) is providing a more descriptive name, we
-feel that (for the average developer) it takes away from readability and
-therefore is to be avoided.
-
-Second, loop counters and other local throw-away variables often have a purpose
-which is obvious. There's no need, therefore, to get carried away with complex
-naming. We find i, j, and k are better loop counters than loopCounterVar or
-whatnot. We only break this rule when we see that more description could improve
-understanding of an algorithm.
-
-
-#### Consistent
-
-We like consistency, but we're not really obsessed with it. We try to name our
-configuration macros in a consistent fashion... you'll notice a repeated use of
-UNITY_EXCLUDE_BLAH or UNITY_USES_BLAH macros. This helps users avoid having to
-remember each macro's details.
-
-
-#### Memorable
-
-Where ever it doesn't violate the above principles, we try to apply memorable
-names. Sometimes this means using something that is simply descriptive, but
-often we strive for descriptive AND unique... we like quirky names that stand
-out in our memory and are easier to search for. Take a look through the file
-names in Ceedling and you'll get a good idea of what we are talking about here.
-Why use preprocess when you can use preprocessinator? Or what better describes a
-module in charge of invoking tasks during releases than release_invoker? Don't
-get carried away. The names are still descriptive and fulfill the above
-requirements, but they don't feel stale.
-
-
-## C and C++ Details
-
-We don't really want to add to the style battles out there. Tabs or spaces?
-How many spaces? Where do the braces go? These are age-old questions that will
-never be answered... or at least not answered in a way that will make everyone
-happy.
-
-We've decided on our own style preferences. If you'd like to contribute to these
-projects (and we hope that you do), then we ask if you do your best to follow
-the same. It will only hurt a little. We promise.
-
-
-#### Whitespace
-
-Our C-style is to use spaces and to use 4 of them per indent level. It's a nice
-power-of-2 number that looks decent on a wide screen. We have no more reason
-than that. We break that rule when we have lines that wrap (macros or function
-arguments or whatnot). When that happens, we like to indent further to line
-things up in nice tidy columns.
-
-```C
-    if (stuff_happened)
-    {
-        do_something();
-    }
-```
-
-
-#### Case
-
-- Files - all lower case with underscores.
-- Variables - all lower case with underscores
-- Macros - all caps with underscores.
-- Typedefs - all caps with underscores. (also ends with _T).
-- Functions - camel cased. Usually named ModuleName_FuncName
-- Constants and Globals - camel cased.
-
-
-#### Braces
-
-The left brace is on the next line after the declaration. The right brace is
-directly below that. Everything in between in indented one level. If you're
-catching an error and you have a one-line, go ahead and to it on the same line.
-
-```C
-    while (blah)
-    {
-        //Like so. Even if only one line, we use braces.
-    }
-```
-
-
-#### Comments
-
-Do you know what we hate? Old-school C block comments. BUT, we're using them
-anyway. As we mentioned, our goal is to support every compiler we can,
-especially embedded compilers. There are STILL C compilers out there that only
-support old-school block comments. So that is what we're using. We apologize. We
-think they are ugly too.
-
-
-## Ruby Details
-
-Is there really such thing as a Ruby coding standard? Ruby is such a free form
-language, it seems almost sacrilegious to suggest that people should comply to
-one method! We'll keep it really brief!
-
-
-#### Whitespace
-
-Our Ruby style is to use spaces and to use 2 of them per indent level. It's a
-nice power-of-2 number that really grooves with Ruby's compact style. We have no
-more reason than that. We break that rule when we have lines that wrap. When
-that happens, we like to indent further to line things up in nice tidy columns.
-
-
-#### Case
-
-- Files - all lower case with underscores.
-- Variables - all lower case with underscores
-- Classes, Modules, etc - Camel cased.
-- Functions - all lower case with underscores
-- Constants - all upper case with underscores
-
-
-## Documentation
-
-Egad. Really? We use markdown and we like pdf files because they can be made to
-look nice while still being portable. Good enough?
-
-
-*Find The Latest of This And More at [ThrowTheSwitch.org](https://throwtheswitch.org)*
+# ThrowTheSwitch.org Coding Standard
+
+Hi. Welcome to the coding standard for ThrowTheSwitch.org. For the most part,
+we try to follow these standards to unify our contributors' code into a cohesive
+unit (puns intended). You might find places where these standards aren't
+followed. We're not perfect. Please be polite where you notice these discrepancies
+and we'll try to be polite when we notice yours.
+
+;)
+
+
+## Why Have A Coding Standard?
+
+Being consistent makes code easier to understand. We've made an attempt to keep
+our standard simple because we also believe that we can only expect someone to
+follow something that is understandable. Please do your best.
+
+
+## Our Philosophy
+
+Before we get into details on syntax, let's take a moment to talk about our
+vision for these tools. We're C developers and embedded software developers.
+These tools are great to test any C code, but catering to embedded software has
+made us more tolerant of compiler quirks. There are a LOT of quirky compilers
+out there. By quirky I mean "doesn't follow standards because they feel like
+they have a license to do as they wish."
+
+Our philosophy is "support every compiler we can". Most often, this means that
+we aim for writing C code that is standards compliant (often C89... that seems
+to be a sweet spot that is almost always compatible). But it also means these
+tools are tolerant of things that aren't common. Some that aren't even
+compliant. There are configuration options to override the size of standard
+types. There are configuration options to force Unity to not use certain
+standard library functions. A lot of Unity is configurable and we have worked
+hard to make it not TOO ugly in the process.
+
+Similarly, our tools that parse C do their best. They aren't full C parsers
+(yet) and, even if they were, they would still have to accept non-standard
+additions like gcc extensions or specifying `@0x1000` to force a variable to
+compile to a particular location. It's just what we do, because we like
+everything to Just Work™.
+
+Speaking of having things Just Work™, that's our second philosophy. By that, we
+mean that we do our best to have EVERY configuration option have a logical
+default. We believe that if you're working with a simple compiler and target,
+you shouldn't need to configure very much... we try to make the tools guess as
+much as they can, but give the user the power to override it when it's wrong.
+
+
+## Naming Things
+
+Let's talk about naming things. Programming is all about naming things. We name
+files, functions, variables, and so much more. While we're not always going to
+find the best name for something, we actually put quite a bit of effort into
+finding *What Something WANTS to be Called*™.
+
+When naming things, we more or less follow this hierarchy, the first being the
+most important to us (but we do all four whenever possible):
+1. Readable
+2. Descriptive
+3. Consistent
+4. Memorable
+
+
+#### Readable
+
+We want to read our code. This means we like names and flow that are more
+naturally read. We try to avoid double negatives. We try to avoid cryptic
+abbreviations (sticking to ones we feel are common).
+
+
+#### Descriptive
+
+We like descriptive names for things, especially functions and variables.
+Finding the right name for something is an important endeavor. You might notice
+from poking around our code that this often results in names that are a little
+longer than the average. Guilty. We're okay with a tiny bit more typing if it
+means our code is easier to understand.
+
+There are two exceptions to this rule that we also stick to as religiously as
+possible:
+
+First, while we realize hungarian notation (and similar systems for encoding
+type information into variable names) is providing a more descriptive name, we
+feel that (for the average developer) it takes away from readability and
+therefore is to be avoided.
+
+Second, loop counters and other local throw-away variables often have a purpose
+which is obvious. There's no need, therefore, to get carried away with complex
+naming. We find i, j, and k are better loop counters than loopCounterVar or
+whatnot. We only break this rule when we see that more description could improve
+understanding of an algorithm.
+
+
+#### Consistent
+
+We like consistency, but we're not really obsessed with it. We try to name our
+configuration macros in a consistent fashion... you'll notice a repeated use of
+UNITY_EXCLUDE_BLAH or UNITY_USES_BLAH macros. This helps users avoid having to
+remember each macro's details.
+
+
+#### Memorable
+
+Where ever it doesn't violate the above principles, we try to apply memorable
+names. Sometimes this means using something that is simply descriptive, but
+often we strive for descriptive AND unique... we like quirky names that stand
+out in our memory and are easier to search for. Take a look through the file
+names in Ceedling and you'll get a good idea of what we are talking about here.
+Why use preprocess when you can use preprocessinator? Or what better describes a
+module in charge of invoking tasks during releases than release_invoker? Don't
+get carried away. The names are still descriptive and fulfill the above
+requirements, but they don't feel stale.
+
+
+## C and C++ Details
+
+We don't really want to add to the style battles out there. Tabs or spaces?
+How many spaces? Where do the braces go? These are age-old questions that will
+never be answered... or at least not answered in a way that will make everyone
+happy.
+
+We've decided on our own style preferences. If you'd like to contribute to these
+projects (and we hope that you do), then we ask if you do your best to follow
+the same. It will only hurt a little. We promise.
+
+
+#### Whitespace
+
+Our C-style is to use spaces and to use 4 of them per indent level. It's a nice
+power-of-2 number that looks decent on a wide screen. We have no more reason
+than that. We break that rule when we have lines that wrap (macros or function
+arguments or whatnot). When that happens, we like to indent further to line
+things up in nice tidy columns.
+
+```C
+    if (stuff_happened)
+    {
+        do_something();
+    }
+```
+
+
+#### Case
+
+- Files - all lower case with underscores.
+- Variables - all lower case with underscores
+- Macros - all caps with underscores.
+- Typedefs - all caps with underscores. (also ends with _T).
+- Functions - camel cased. Usually named ModuleName_FuncName
+- Constants and Globals - camel cased.
+
+
+#### Braces
+
+The left brace is on the next line after the declaration. The right brace is
+directly below that. Everything in between in indented one level. If you're
+catching an error and you have a one-line, go ahead and to it on the same line.
+
+```C
+    while (blah)
+    {
+        //Like so. Even if only one line, we use braces.
+    }
+```
+
+
+#### Comments
+
+Do you know what we hate? Old-school C block comments. BUT, we're using them
+anyway. As we mentioned, our goal is to support every compiler we can,
+especially embedded compilers. There are STILL C compilers out there that only
+support old-school block comments. So that is what we're using. We apologize. We
+think they are ugly too.
+
+
+## Ruby Details
+
+Is there really such thing as a Ruby coding standard? Ruby is such a free form
+language, it seems almost sacrilegious to suggest that people should comply to
+one method! We'll keep it really brief!
+
+
+#### Whitespace
+
+Our Ruby style is to use spaces and to use 2 of them per indent level. It's a
+nice power-of-2 number that really grooves with Ruby's compact style. We have no
+more reason than that. We break that rule when we have lines that wrap. When
+that happens, we like to indent further to line things up in nice tidy columns.
+
+
+#### Case
+
+- Files - all lower case with underscores.
+- Variables - all lower case with underscores
+- Classes, Modules, etc - Camel cased.
+- Functions - all lower case with underscores
+- Constants - all upper case with underscores
+
+
+## Documentation
+
+Egad. Really? We use markdown and we like pdf files because they can be made to
+look nice while still being portable. Good enough?
+
+
+*Find The Latest of This And More at [ThrowTheSwitch.org](https://throwtheswitch.org)*

data/vendor/cmock/vendor/c_exception/lib/CException.c

@@ -1,46 +1,46 @@
-#include "CException.h"
-
-#pragma GCC diagnostic push
-#pragma GCC diagnostic ignored "-Wmissing-field-initializers"
-volatile CEXCEPTION_FRAME_T CExceptionFrames[CEXCEPTION_NUM_ID] = {{ 0 }};
-#pragma GCC diagnostic pop
-
-//------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-//  Throw
-//------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-void Throw(CEXCEPTION_T ExceptionID)
-{
-    unsigned int MY_ID = CEXCEPTION_GET_ID;
-    CExceptionFrames[MY_ID].Exception = ExceptionID;
-    if (CExceptionFrames[MY_ID].pFrame)
-    {
-        longjmp(*CExceptionFrames[MY_ID].pFrame, 1);
-    }
-    CEXCEPTION_NO_CATCH_HANDLER(ExceptionID);
-}
-
-//------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-//  Explanation of what it's all for:
-//------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-/*
-#define Try
-    {                                                                   <- give us some local scope.  most compilers are happy with this
-        jmp_buf *PrevFrame, NewFrame;                                   <- prev frame points to the last try block's frame.  new frame gets created on stack for this Try block
-        unsigned int MY_ID = CEXCEPTION_GET_ID;                         <- look up this task's id for use in frame array.  always 0 if single-tasking
-        PrevFrame = CExceptionFrames[CEXCEPTION_GET_ID].pFrame;         <- set pointer to point at old frame (which array is currently pointing at)
-        CExceptionFrames[MY_ID].pFrame = &NewFrame;                     <- set array to point at my new frame instead, now
-        CExceptionFrames[MY_ID].Exception = CEXCEPTION_NONE;            <- initialize my exception id to be NONE
-        if (setjmp(NewFrame) == 0) {                                    <- do setjmp.  it returns 1 if longjump called, otherwise 0
-            if (&PrevFrame)                                             <- this is here to force proper scoping.  it requires braces or a single line to be but after Try, otherwise won't compile.  This is always true at this point.
-
-#define Catch(e)
-            else { }                                                    <- this also forces proper scoping.  Without this they could stick their own 'else' in and it would get ugly
-            CExceptionFrames[MY_ID].Exception = CEXCEPTION_NONE;        <- no errors happened, so just set the exception id to NONE (in case it was corrupted)
-        }
-        else                                                            <- an exception occurred
-        { e = CExceptionFrames[MY_ID].Exception; e=e;}                  <- assign the caught exception id to the variable passed in.
-        CExceptionFrames[MY_ID].pFrame = PrevFrame;                     <- make the pointer in the array point at the previous frame again, as if NewFrame never existed.
-    }                                                                   <- finish off that local scope we created to have our own variables
-    if (CExceptionFrames[CEXCEPTION_GET_ID].Exception != CEXCEPTION_NONE)  <- start the actual 'catch' processing if we have an exception id saved away
- */
-
+#include "CException.h"
+
+#pragma GCC diagnostic push
+#pragma GCC diagnostic ignored "-Wmissing-field-initializers"
+volatile CEXCEPTION_FRAME_T CExceptionFrames[CEXCEPTION_NUM_ID] = {{ 0 }};
+#pragma GCC diagnostic pop
+
+//------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
+//  Throw
+//------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
+void Throw(CEXCEPTION_T ExceptionID)
+{
+    unsigned int MY_ID = CEXCEPTION_GET_ID;
+    CExceptionFrames[MY_ID].Exception = ExceptionID;
+    if (CExceptionFrames[MY_ID].pFrame)
+    {
+        longjmp(*CExceptionFrames[MY_ID].pFrame, 1);
+    }
+    CEXCEPTION_NO_CATCH_HANDLER(ExceptionID);
+}
+
+//------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
+//  Explanation of what it's all for:
+//------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
+/*
+#define Try
+    {                                                                   <- give us some local scope.  most compilers are happy with this
+        jmp_buf *PrevFrame, NewFrame;                                   <- prev frame points to the last try block's frame.  new frame gets created on stack for this Try block
+        unsigned int MY_ID = CEXCEPTION_GET_ID;                         <- look up this task's id for use in frame array.  always 0 if single-tasking
+        PrevFrame = CExceptionFrames[CEXCEPTION_GET_ID].pFrame;         <- set pointer to point at old frame (which array is currently pointing at)
+        CExceptionFrames[MY_ID].pFrame = &NewFrame;                     <- set array to point at my new frame instead, now
+        CExceptionFrames[MY_ID].Exception = CEXCEPTION_NONE;            <- initialize my exception id to be NONE
+        if (setjmp(NewFrame) == 0) {                                    <- do setjmp.  it returns 1 if longjump called, otherwise 0
+            if (&PrevFrame)                                             <- this is here to force proper scoping.  it requires braces or a single line to be but after Try, otherwise won't compile.  This is always true at this point.
+
+#define Catch(e)
+            else { }                                                    <- this also forces proper scoping.  Without this they could stick their own 'else' in and it would get ugly
+            CExceptionFrames[MY_ID].Exception = CEXCEPTION_NONE;        <- no errors happened, so just set the exception id to NONE (in case it was corrupted)
+        }
+        else                                                            <- an exception occurred
+        { e = CExceptionFrames[MY_ID].Exception; e=e;}                  <- assign the caught exception id to the variable passed in.
+        CExceptionFrames[MY_ID].pFrame = PrevFrame;                     <- make the pointer in the array point at the previous frame again, as if NewFrame never existed.
+    }                                                                   <- finish off that local scope we created to have our own variables
+    if (CExceptionFrames[CEXCEPTION_GET_ID].Exception != CEXCEPTION_NONE)  <- start the actual 'catch' processing if we have an exception id saved away
+ */
+