ceedling 0.28.3 → 0.29.0

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

@@ -0,0 +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)*

data/vendor/c_exception/vendor/unity/docs/UnityAssertionsReference.md

@@ -0,0 +1,716 @@
+# Unity Assertions Reference
+
+## Background and Overview
+
+### Super Condensed Version
+
+- An assertion establishes truth (i.e. boolean True) for a single condition.
+Upon boolean False, an assertion stops execution and reports the failure.
+- Unity is mainly a rich collection of assertions and the support to gather up
+and easily execute those assertions.
+- The structure of Unity allows you to easily separate test assertions from
+source code in, well, test code.
+- Unity's assertions:
+- Come in many, many flavors to handle different C types and assertion cases.
+- Use context to provide detailed and helpful failure messages.
+- Document types, expected values, and basic behavior in your source code for
+free.
+
+
+### Unity Is Several Things But Mainly It's Assertions
+
+One way to think of Unity is simply as a rich collection of assertions you can
+use to establish whether your source code behaves the way you think it does.
+Unity provides a framework to easily organize and execute those assertions in
+test code separate from your source code.
+
+
+### What's an Assertion?
+
+At their core, assertions are an establishment of truth - boolean truth. Was this
+thing equal to that thing? Does that code doohickey have such-and-such property
+or not? You get the idea. Assertions are executable code (to appreciate the big
+picture on this read up on the difference between
+[link:Dynamic Verification and Static Analysis]). A failing assertion stops
+execution and reports an error through some appropriate I/O channel (e.g.
+stdout, GUI, file, blinky light).
+
+Fundamentally, for dynamic verification all you need is a single assertion
+mechanism. In fact, that's what the [assert() macro in C's standard library](http://en.wikipedia.org/en/wiki/Assert.h)
+is for. So why not just use it? Well, we can do far better in the reporting
+department. C's `assert()` is pretty dumb as-is and is particularly poor for
+handling common data types like arrays, structs, etc. And, without some other
+support, it's far too tempting to litter source code with C's `assert()`'s. It's
+generally much cleaner, manageable, and more useful to separate test and source
+code in the way Unity facilitates.
+
+
+### Unity's Assertions: Helpful Messages _and_ Free Source Code Documentation
+
+Asserting a simple truth condition is valuable, but using the context of the
+assertion is even more valuable. For instance, if you know you're comparing bit
+flags and not just integers, then why not use that context to give explicit,
+readable, bit-level feedback when an assertion fails?
+
+That's what Unity's collection of assertions do - capture context to give you
+helpful, meaningful assertion failure messages. In fact, the assertions
+themselves also serve as executable documentation about types and values in your
+source code. So long as your tests remain current with your source and all those
+tests pass, you have a detailed, up-to-date view of the intent and mechanisms in
+your source code. And due to a wondrous mystery, well-tested code usually tends
+to be well designed code.
+
+
+## Assertion Conventions and Configurations
+
+### Naming and Parameter Conventions
+
+The convention of assertion parameters generally follows this order:
+
+    TEST_ASSERT_X( {modifiers}, {expected}, actual, {size/count} )
+
+The very simplest assertion possible uses only a single "actual" parameter (e.g.
+a simple null check).
+
+"Actual" is the value being tested and unlike the other parameters in an
+assertion construction is the only parameter present in all assertion variants.
+"Modifiers" are masks, ranges, bit flag specifiers, floating point deltas.
+"Expected" is your expected value (duh) to compare to an "actual" value; it's
+marked as an optional parameter because some assertions only need a single
+"actual" parameter (e.g. null check).
+"Size/count" refers to string lengths, number of array elements, etc.
+
+Many of Unity's assertions are apparent duplications in that the same data type
+is handled by several assertions. The differences among these are in how failure
+messages are presented. For instance, a `_HEX` variant of an assertion prints
+the expected and actual values of that assertion formatted as hexadecimal.
+
+
+#### TEST_ASSERT_X_MESSAGE Variants
+
+_All_ assertions are complemented with a variant that includes a simple string
+message as a final parameter. The string you specify is appended to an assertion
+failure message in Unity output.
+
+For brevity, the assertion variants with a message parameter are not listed
+below. Just tack on `_MESSAGE` as the final component to any assertion name in
+the reference list below and add a string as the final parameter.
+
+_Example:_
+
+    TEST_ASSERT_X( {modifiers}, {expected}, actual, {size/count} )
+
+becomes messageified like thus...
+
+    TEST_ASSERT_X_MESSAGE( {modifiers}, {expected}, actual, {size/count}, message )
+
+
+#### TEST_ASSERT_X_ARRAY Variants
+
+Unity provides a collection of assertions for arrays containing a variety of
+types. These are documented in the Array section below. These are almost on par
+with the `_MESSAGE`variants of Unity's Asserts in that for pretty much any Unity
+type assertion you can tack on `_ARRAY` and run assertions on an entire block of
+memory.
+
+    TEST_ASSERT_EQUAL_TYPEX_ARRAY( expected, actual, {size/count} )
+
+"Expected" is an array itself.
+"Size/count" is one or two parameters necessary to establish the number of array
+elements and perhaps the length of elements within the array.
+
+Notes:
+- The `_MESSAGE` variant convention still applies here to array assertions. The
+`_MESSAGE` variants of the `_ARRAY` assertions have names ending with
+`_ARRAY_MESSAGE`.
+- Assertions for handling arrays of floating point values are grouped with float
+and double assertions (see immediately following section).
+
+
+### TEST_ASSERT_EACH_EQUAL_X Variants
+
+Unity provides a collection of assertions for arrays containing a variety of
+types which can be compared to a single value as well. These are documented in
+the Each Equal section below. these are almost on par with the `_MESSAGE`
+variants of Unity's Asserts in that for pretty much any Unity type assertion you
+can inject _EACH_EQUAL and run assertions on an entire block of memory.
+
+    TEST_ASSERT_EACH_EQUAL_TYPEX( expected, actual, {size/count} )
+
+"Expected" is a single value to compare to.
+"Actual" is an array where each element will be compared to the expected value.
+"Size/count" is one of two parameters necessary to establish the number of array
+elements and perhaps the length of elements within the array.
+
+Notes:
+- The `_MESSAGE` variant convention still applies here to Each Equal assertions.
+- Assertions for handling Each Equal of floating point values are grouped with
+float and double assertions (see immediately following section).
+
+
+### Configuration
+
+#### Floating Point Support Is Optional
+
+Support for floating point types is configurable. That is, by defining the
+appropriate preprocessor symbols, floats and doubles can be individually enabled
+or disabled in Unity code. This is useful for embedded targets with no floating
+point math support (i.e. Unity compiles free of errors for fixed point only
+platforms). See Unity documentation for specifics.
+
+
+#### Maximum Data Type Width Is Configurable
+
+Not all targets support 64 bit wide types or even 32 bit wide types. Define the
+appropriate preprocessor symbols and Unity will omit all operations from
+compilation that exceed the maximum width of your target. See Unity
+documentation for specifics.
+
+
+## The Assertions in All Their Blessed Glory
+
+### Basic Fail and Ignore
+
+##### `TEST_FAIL()`
+
+This fella is most often used in special conditions where your test code is
+performing logic beyond a simple assertion. That is, in practice, `TEST_FAIL()`
+will always be found inside a conditional code block.
+
+_Examples:_
+- Executing a state machine multiple times that increments a counter your test
+code then verifies as a final step.
+- Triggering an exception and verifying it (as in Try / Catch / Throw - see the
+[CException](https://github.com/ThrowTheSwitch/CException) project).
+
+##### `TEST_IGNORE()`
+
+Marks a test case (i.e. function meant to contain test assertions) as ignored.
+Usually this is employed as a breadcrumb to come back and implement a test case.
+An ignored test case has effects if other assertions are in the enclosing test
+case (see Unity documentation for more).
+
+### Boolean
+
+##### `TEST_ASSERT (condition)`
+
+##### `TEST_ASSERT_TRUE (condition)`
+
+##### `TEST_ASSERT_FALSE (condition)`
+
+##### `TEST_ASSERT_UNLESS (condition)`
+
+A simple wording variation on `TEST_ASSERT_FALSE`.The semantics of
+`TEST_ASSERT_UNLESS` aid readability in certain test constructions or
+conditional statements.
+
+##### `TEST_ASSERT_NULL (pointer)`
+
+##### `TEST_ASSERT_NOT_NULL (pointer)`
+
+
+### Signed and Unsigned Integers (of all sizes)
+
+Large integer sizes can be disabled for build targets that do not support them.
+For example, if your target only supports up to 16 bit types, by defining the
+appropriate symbols Unity can be configured to omit 32 and 64 bit operations
+that would break compilation (see Unity documentation for more). Refer to
+Advanced Asserting later in this document for advice on dealing with other word
+sizes.
+
+##### `TEST_ASSERT_EQUAL_INT (expected, actual)`
+
+##### `TEST_ASSERT_EQUAL_INT8 (expected, actual)`
+
+##### `TEST_ASSERT_EQUAL_INT16 (expected, actual)`
+
+##### `TEST_ASSERT_EQUAL_INT32 (expected, actual)`
+
+##### `TEST_ASSERT_EQUAL_INT64 (expected, actual)`
+
+##### `TEST_ASSERT_EQUAL (expected, actual)`
+
+##### `TEST_ASSERT_NOT_EQUAL (expected, actual)`
+
+##### `TEST_ASSERT_EQUAL_UINT (expected, actual)`
+
+##### `TEST_ASSERT_EQUAL_UINT8 (expected, actual)`
+
+##### `TEST_ASSERT_EQUAL_UINT16 (expected, actual)`
+
+##### `TEST_ASSERT_EQUAL_UINT32 (expected, actual)`
+
+##### `TEST_ASSERT_EQUAL_UINT64 (expected, actual)`
+
+
+### Unsigned Integers (of all sizes) in Hexadecimal
+
+All `_HEX` assertions are identical in function to unsigned integer assertions
+but produce failure messages with the `expected` and `actual` values formatted
+in hexadecimal. Unity output is big endian.
+
+##### `TEST_ASSERT_EQUAL_HEX (expected, actual)`
+
+##### `TEST_ASSERT_EQUAL_HEX8 (expected, actual)`
+
+##### `TEST_ASSERT_EQUAL_HEX16 (expected, actual)`
+
+##### `TEST_ASSERT_EQUAL_HEX32 (expected, actual)`
+
+##### `TEST_ASSERT_EQUAL_HEX64 (expected, actual)`
+
+
+### Masked and Bit-level Assertions
+
+Masked and bit-level assertions produce output formatted in hexadecimal. Unity
+output is big endian.
+
+
+##### `TEST_ASSERT_BITS (mask, expected, actual)`
+
+Only compares the masked (i.e. high) bits of `expected` and `actual` parameters.
+
+
+##### `TEST_ASSERT_BITS_HIGH (mask, actual)`
+
+Asserts the masked bits of the `actual` parameter are high.
+
+
+##### `TEST_ASSERT_BITS_LOW (mask, actual)`
+
+Asserts the masked bits of the `actual` parameter are low.
+
+
+##### `TEST_ASSERT_BIT_HIGH (bit, actual)`
+
+Asserts the specified bit of the `actual` parameter is high.
+
+
+##### `TEST_ASSERT_BIT_LOW (bit, actual)`
+
+Asserts the specified bit of the `actual` parameter is low.
+
+
+### Integer Ranges (of all sizes)
+
+These assertions verify that the `expected` parameter is within +/- `delta`
+(inclusive) of the `actual` parameter. For example, if the expected value is 10
+and the delta is 3 then the assertion will fail for any value outside the range
+of 7 - 13.
+
+##### `TEST_ASSERT_INT_WITHIN (delta, expected, actual)`
+
+##### `TEST_ASSERT_INT8_WITHIN (delta, expected, actual)`
+
+##### `TEST_ASSERT_INT16_WITHIN (delta, expected, actual)`
+
+##### `TEST_ASSERT_INT32_WITHIN (delta, expected, actual)`
+
+##### `TEST_ASSERT_INT64_WITHIN (delta, expected, actual)`
+
+##### `TEST_ASSERT_UINT_WITHIN (delta, expected, actual)`
+
+##### `TEST_ASSERT_UINT8_WITHIN (delta, expected, actual)`
+
+##### `TEST_ASSERT_UINT16_WITHIN (delta, expected, actual)`
+
+##### `TEST_ASSERT_UINT32_WITHIN (delta, expected, actual)`
+
+##### `TEST_ASSERT_UINT64_WITHIN (delta, expected, actual)`
+
+##### `TEST_ASSERT_HEX_WITHIN (delta, expected, actual)`
+
+##### `TEST_ASSERT_HEX8_WITHIN (delta, expected, actual)`
+
+##### `TEST_ASSERT_HEX16_WITHIN (delta, expected, actual)`
+
+##### `TEST_ASSERT_HEX32_WITHIN (delta, expected, actual)`
+
+##### `TEST_ASSERT_HEX64_WITHIN (delta, expected, actual)`
+
+
+### Structs and Strings
+
+##### `TEST_ASSERT_EQUAL_PTR (expected, actual)`
+
+Asserts that the pointers point to the same memory location.
+
+
+##### `TEST_ASSERT_EQUAL_STRING (expected, actual)`
+
+Asserts that the null terminated (`'\0'`)strings are identical. If strings are
+of different lengths or any portion of the strings before their terminators
+differ, the assertion fails. Two NULL strings (i.e. zero length) are considered
+equivalent.
+
+
+##### `TEST_ASSERT_EQUAL_MEMORY (expected, actual, len)`
+
+Asserts that the contents of the memory specified by the `expected` and `actual`
+pointers is identical. The size of the memory blocks in bytes is specified by
+the `len` parameter.
+
+
+### Arrays
+
+`expected` and `actual` parameters are both arrays. `num_elements` specifies the
+number of elements in the arrays to compare.
+
+`_HEX` assertions produce failure messages with expected and actual array
+contents formatted in hexadecimal.
+
+For array of strings comparison behavior, see comments for
+`TEST_ASSERT_EQUAL_STRING` in the preceding section.
+
+Assertions fail upon the first element in the compared arrays found not to
+match. Failure messages specify the array index of the failed comparison.
+
+##### `TEST_ASSERT_EQUAL_INT_ARRAY (expected, actual, num_elements)`
+
+##### `TEST_ASSERT_EQUAL_INT8_ARRAY (expected, actual, num_elements)`
+
+##### `TEST_ASSERT_EQUAL_INT16_ARRAY (expected, actual, num_elements)`
+
+##### `TEST_ASSERT_EQUAL_INT32_ARRAY (expected, actual, num_elements)`
+
+##### `TEST_ASSERT_EQUAL_INT64_ARRAY (expected, actual, num_elements)`
+
+##### `TEST_ASSERT_EQUAL_UINT_ARRAY (expected, actual, num_elements)`
+
+##### `TEST_ASSERT_EQUAL_UINT8_ARRAY (expected, actual, num_elements)`
+
+##### `TEST_ASSERT_EQUAL_UINT16_ARRAY (expected, actual, num_elements)`
+
+##### `TEST_ASSERT_EQUAL_UINT32_ARRAY (expected, actual, num_elements)`
+
+##### `TEST_ASSERT_EQUAL_UINT64_ARRAY (expected, actual, num_elements)`
+
+##### `TEST_ASSERT_EQUAL_HEX_ARRAY (expected, actual, num_elements)`
+
+##### `TEST_ASSERT_EQUAL_HEX8_ARRAY (expected, actual, num_elements)`
+
+##### `TEST_ASSERT_EQUAL_HEX16_ARRAY (expected, actual, num_elements)`
+
+##### `TEST_ASSERT_EQUAL_HEX32_ARRAY (expected, actual, num_elements)`
+
+##### `TEST_ASSERT_EQUAL_HEX64_ARRAY (expected, actual, num_elements)`
+
+##### `TEST_ASSERT_EQUAL_PTR_ARRAY (expected, actual, num_elements)`
+
+##### `TEST_ASSERT_EQUAL_STRING_ARRAY (expected, actual, num_elements)`
+
+##### `TEST_ASSERT_EQUAL_MEMORY_ARRAY (expected, actual, len, num_elements)`
+
+`len` is the memory in bytes to be compared at each array element.
+
+
+### Each Equal (Arrays to Single Value)
+
+`expected` are single values and `actual` are arrays. `num_elements` specifies
+the number of elements in the arrays to compare.
+
+`_HEX` assertions produce failure messages with expected and actual array
+contents formatted in hexadecimal.
+
+Assertions fail upon the first element in the compared arrays found not to
+match. Failure messages specify the array index of the failed comparison.
+
+#### `TEST_ASSERT_EACH_EQUAL_INT (expected, actual, num_elements)`
+
+#### `TEST_ASSERT_EACH_EQUAL_INT8 (expected, actual, num_elements)`
+
+#### `TEST_ASSERT_EACH_EQUAL_INT16 (expected, actual, num_elements)`
+
+#### `TEST_ASSERT_EACH_EQUAL_INT32 (expected, actual, num_elements)`
+
+#### `TEST_ASSERT_EACH_EQUAL_INT64 (expected, actual, num_elements)`
+
+#### `TEST_ASSERT_EACH_EQUAL_UINT (expected, actual, num_elements)`
+
+#### `TEST_ASSERT_EACH_EQUAL_UINT8 (expected, actual, num_elements)`
+
+#### `TEST_ASSERT_EACH_EQUAL_UINT16 (expected, actual, num_elements)`
+
+#### `TEST_ASSERT_EACH_EQUAL_UINT32 (expected, actual, num_elements)`
+
+#### `TEST_ASSERT_EACH_EQUAL_UINT64 (expected, actual, num_elements)`
+
+#### `TEST_ASSERT_EACH_EQUAL_HEX (expected, actual, num_elements)`
+
+#### `TEST_ASSERT_EACH_EQUAL_HEX8 (expected, actual, num_elements)`
+
+#### `TEST_ASSERT_EACH_EQUAL_HEX16 (expected, actual, num_elements)`
+
+#### `TEST_ASSERT_EACH_EQUAL_HEX32 (expected, actual, num_elements)`
+
+#### `TEST_ASSERT_EACH_EQUAL_HEX64 (expected, actual, num_elements)`
+
+#### `TEST_ASSERT_EACH_EQUAL_PTR (expected, actual, num_elements)`
+
+#### `TEST_ASSERT_EACH_EQUAL_STRING (expected, actual, num_elements)`
+
+#### `TEST_ASSERT_EACH_EQUAL_MEMORY (expected, actual, len, num_elements)`
+
+`len` is the memory in bytes to be compared at each array element.
+
+
+### Floating Point (If enabled)
+
+##### `TEST_ASSERT_FLOAT_WITHIN (delta, expected, actual)`
+
+Asserts that the `actual` value is within +/- `delta` of the `expected` value.
+The nature of floating point representation is such that exact evaluations of
+equality are not guaranteed.
+
+
+##### `TEST_ASSERT_EQUAL_FLOAT (expected, actual)`
+
+Asserts that the ?actual?value is "close enough to be considered equal" to the
+`expected` value. If you are curious about the details, refer to the Advanced
+Asserting section for more details on this. Omitting a user-specified delta in a
+floating point assertion is both a shorthand convenience and a requirement of
+code generation conventions for CMock.
+
+
+##### `TEST_ASSERT_EQUAL_FLOAT_ARRAY (expected, actual, num_elements)`
+
+See Array assertion section for details. Note that individual array element
+float comparisons are executed using T?EST_ASSERT_EQUAL_FLOAT?.That is, user
+specified delta comparison values requires a custom-implemented floating point
+array assertion.
+
+
+##### `TEST_ASSERT_FLOAT_IS_INF (actual)`
+
+Asserts that `actual` parameter is equivalent to positive infinity floating
+point representation.
+
+
+##### `TEST_ASSERT_FLOAT_IS_NEG_INF (actual)`
+
+Asserts that `actual` parameter is equivalent to negative infinity floating
+point representation.
+
+
+##### `TEST_ASSERT_FLOAT_IS_NAN (actual)`
+
+Asserts that `actual` parameter is a Not A Number floating point representation.
+
+
+##### `TEST_ASSERT_FLOAT_IS_DETERMINATE (actual)`
+
+Asserts that ?actual?parameter is a floating point representation usable for
+mathematical operations. That is, the `actual` parameter is neither positive
+infinity nor negative infinity nor Not A Number floating point representations.
+
+
+##### `TEST_ASSERT_FLOAT_IS_NOT_INF (actual)`
+
+Asserts that `actual` parameter is a value other than positive infinity floating
+point representation.
+
+
+##### `TEST_ASSERT_FLOAT_IS_NOT_NEG_INF (actual)`
+
+Asserts that `actual` parameter is a value other than negative infinity floating
+point representation.
+
+
+##### `TEST_ASSERT_FLOAT_IS_NOT_NAN (actual)`
+
+Asserts that `actual` parameter is a value other than Not A Number floating
+point representation.
+
+
+##### `TEST_ASSERT_FLOAT_IS_NOT_DETERMINATE (actual)`
+
+Asserts that `actual` parameter is not usable for mathematical operations. That
+is, the `actual` parameter is either positive infinity or negative infinity or
+Not A Number floating point representations.
+
+
+### Double (If enabled)
+
+##### `TEST_ASSERT_DOUBLE_WITHIN (delta, expected, actual)`
+
+Asserts that the `actual` value is within +/- `delta` of the `expected` value.
+The nature of floating point representation is such that exact evaluations of
+equality are not guaranteed.
+
+
+##### `TEST_ASSERT_EQUAL_DOUBLE (expected, actual)`
+
+Asserts that the `actual` value is "close enough to be considered equal" to the
+`expected` value. If you are curious about the details, refer to the Advanced
+Asserting section for more details. Omitting a user-specified delta in a
+floating point assertion is both a shorthand convenience and a requirement of
+code generation conventions for CMock.
+
+
+##### `TEST_ASSERT_EQUAL_DOUBLE_ARRAY (expected, actual, num_elements)`
+
+See Array assertion section for details. Note that individual array element
+double comparisons are executed using `TEST_ASSERT_EQUAL_DOUBLE`.That is, user
+specified delta comparison values requires a custom implemented double array
+assertion.
+
+
+##### `TEST_ASSERT_DOUBLE_IS_INF (actual)`
+
+Asserts that `actual` parameter is equivalent to positive infinity floating
+point representation.
+
+
+##### `TEST_ASSERT_DOUBLE_IS_NEG_INF (actual)`
+
+Asserts that `actual` parameter is equivalent to negative infinity floating point
+representation.
+
+
+##### `TEST_ASSERT_DOUBLE_IS_NAN (actual)`
+
+Asserts that `actual` parameter is a Not A Number floating point representation.
+
+
+##### `TEST_ASSERT_DOUBLE_IS_DETERMINATE (actual)`
+
+Asserts that `actual` parameter is a floating point representation usable for
+mathematical operations. That is, the ?actual?parameter is neither positive
+infinity nor negative infinity nor Not A Number floating point representations.
+
+
+##### `TEST_ASSERT_DOUBLE_IS_NOT_INF (actual)`
+
+Asserts that `actual` parameter is a value other than positive infinity floating
+point representation.
+
+
+##### `TEST_ASSERT_DOUBLE_IS_NOT_NEG_INF (actual)`
+
+Asserts that `actual` parameter is a value other than negative infinity floating
+point representation.
+
+
+##### `TEST_ASSERT_DOUBLE_IS_NOT_NAN (actual)`
+
+Asserts that `actual` parameter is a value other than Not A Number floating
+point representation.
+
+
+##### `TEST_ASSERT_DOUBLE_IS_NOT_DETERMINATE (actual)`
+
+Asserts that `actual` parameter is not usable for mathematical operations. That
+is, the `actual` parameter is either positive infinity or negative infinity or
+Not A Number floating point representations.
+
+
+## Advanced Asserting: Details On Tricky Assertions
+
+This section helps you understand how to deal with some of the trickier
+assertion situations you may run into. It will give you a glimpse into some of
+the under-the-hood details of Unity's assertion mechanisms. If you're one of
+those people who likes to know what is going on in the background, read on. If
+not, feel free to ignore the rest of this document until you need it.
+
+
+### How do the EQUAL assertions work for FLOAT and DOUBLE?
+
+As you may know, directly checking for equality between a pair of floats or a
+pair of doubles is sloppy at best and an outright no-no at worst. Floating point
+values can often be represented in multiple ways, particularly after a series of
+operations on a value. Initializing a variable to the value of 2.0 is likely to
+result in a floating point representation of 2 x 20,but a series of
+mathematical operations might result in a representation of 8 x 2-2
+that also evaluates to a value of 2. At some point repeated operations cause
+equality checks to fail.
+
+So Unity doesn't do direct floating point comparisons for equality. Instead, it
+checks if two floating point values are "really close." If you leave Unity
+running with defaults, "really close" means "within a significant bit or two."
+Under the hood, `TEST_ASSERT_EQUAL_FLOAT` is really `TEST_ASSERT_FLOAT_WITHIN`
+with the `delta` parameter calculated on the fly. For single precision, delta is
+the expected value multiplied by 0.00001, producing a very small proportional
+range around the expected value.
+
+If you are expecting a value of 20,000.0 the delta is calculated to be 0.2. So
+any value between 19,999.8 and 20,000.2 will satisfy the equality check. This
+works out to be roughly a single bit of range for a single-precision number, and
+that's just about as tight a tolerance as you can reasonably get from a floating
+point value.
+
+So what happens when it's zero? Zero - even more than other floating point
+values - can be represented many different ways. It doesn't matter if you have
+0 x 20or 0 x 263.It's still zero, right? Luckily, if you
+subtract these values from each other, they will always produce a difference of
+zero, which will still fall between 0 plus or minus a delta of 0. So it still
+works!
+
+Double precision floating point numbers use a much smaller multiplier, again
+approximating a single bit of error.
+
+If you don't like these ranges and you want to make your floating point equality
+assertions less strict, you can change these multipliers to whatever you like by
+defining UNITY_FLOAT_PRECISION and UNITY_DOUBLE_PRECISION. See Unity
+documentation for more.
+
+
+### How do we deal with targets with non-standard int sizes?
+
+It's "fun" that C is a standard where something as fundamental as an integer
+varies by target. According to the C standard, an `int` is to be the target's
+natural register size, and it should be at least 16-bits and a multiple of a
+byte. It also guarantees an order of sizes:
+
+```C
+char <= short <= int <= long <= long long
+```
+
+Most often, `int` is 32-bits. In many cases in the embedded world, `int` is
+16-bits. There are rare microcontrollers out there that have 24-bit integers,
+and this remains perfectly standard C.
+
+To make things even more interesting, there are compilers and targets out there
+that have a hard choice to make. What if their natural register size is 10-bits
+or 12-bits? Clearly they can't fulfill _both_ the requirement to be at least
+16-bits AND the requirement to match the natural register size. In these
+situations, they often choose the natural register size, leaving us with
+something like this:
+
+```C
+char (8 bit) <= short (12 bit) <= int (12 bit) <= long (16 bit)
+```
+
+Um... yikes. It's obviously breaking a rule or two... but they had to break SOME
+rules, so they made a choice.
+
+When the C99 standard rolled around, it introduced alternate standard-size types.
+It also introduced macros for pulling in MIN/MAX values for your integer types.
+It's glorious! Unfortunately, many embedded compilers can't be relied upon to
+use the C99 types (Sometimes because they have weird register sizes as described
+above. Sometimes because they don't feel like it?).
+
+A goal of Unity from the beginning was to support every combination of
+microcontroller or microprocessor and C compiler. Over time, we've gotten really
+close to this. There are a few tricks that you should be aware of, though, if
+you're going to do this effectively on some of these more idiosyncratic targets.
+
+First, when setting up Unity for a new target, you're going to want to pay
+special attention to the macros for automatically detecting types
+(where available) or manually configuring them yourself. You can get information
+on both of these in Unity's documentation.
+
+What about the times where you suddenly need to deal with something odd, like a
+24-bit `int`? The simplest solution is to use the next size up. If you have a
+24-bit `int`, configure Unity to use 32-bit integers. If you have a 12-bit
+`int`, configure Unity to use 16 bits. There are two ways this is going to
+affect you:
+
+1. When Unity displays errors for you, it's going to pad the upper unused bits
+with zeros.
+2. You're going to have to be careful of assertions that perform signed
+operations, particularly `TEST_ASSERT_INT_WITHIN`.Such assertions might wrap
+your `int` in the wrong place, and you could experience false failures. You can
+always back down to a simple `TEST_ASSERT` and do the operations yourself.
+
+
+*Find The Latest of This And More at [ThrowTheSwitch.org](https://throwtheswitch.org)*