James Fraser

@cormacc, please resolve your conflicts before review moves forward.

Isn't that what the tests do? On Thu., 6 Dec. 2018, 4:31 pm Mike Long Sounds like a great idea....although I wonder how good the coverage data > will be?...

Yes, you're correct. The preprocessor gets in the way of coverage testing. I'll need to rethink this.

@meekrosoft, I had a little look at this just now, a cursory idea; haven't thought hard enough about reasons this might not be useful: ```bash gcc -E fff.h > out1.txt...

NOTE: the above method can't work given that the pre-processed c file, e.g. `test/fff_test_c.c` includes all of `fff.h`. Another approach that I'm playing with (haven't a good result yet): ```bash...

@CanadianHoser, have you attempted @cormacc's suggestion?

@CanadianHoser, it looks like the generator for VARARG fakes, only generates N=2-20: ```c define FAKE_VALUE_FUNC2_VARARG(RETURN_TYPE, FUNCNAME, ARG0_TYPE, ...) \ DECLARE_FAKE_VALUE_FUNC2_VARARG(RETURN_TYPE, FUNCNAME, ARG0_TYPE, ...) \ DEFINE_FAKE_VALUE_FUNC2_VARARG(RETURN_TYPE, FUNCNAME, ARG0_TYPE, ...) \ ```...

Not sure that I'm any more 'qualified', but I'm happy to provide co maintenance. Feel free to get in contact via other channels if you'd like to discuss at more...

Great, thanks @meekrosoft.

@poma +1