ut VS templight

I don't think stepping through static_assert is a thing? Curious if it is, though. Since constexpr is either run-time or compile-time and static_assert is not a poor man's debugging facility could be to -Dstatic_assert(...) assert(__VA_ARGS__) and gdb the code. Alternatively, a more refined solution would be to use an UT framework (for example https://github.com/boost-ext/ut) which helps with that. IMHO, TDD can also limit the requirement of stepping into the code and with gurantees that the code is memory safe and UB safe there is less need for sanitizers and valgrind etc. depending on the coverage.

It was not easy, I had to modify Boost UT to get it to run my tests. It doesn't support type-parametrized tests when the type parameter is non-copiable, which was the case for me. This is a symptom of a larger issue, which is that it relies on std::apply and std::tuple to generate the type-parametrized tests, which in turns requires instantiating the tuple and the contained objects (even though these instances aren't actually used; eh). That's a no go for me, since I need to carefully monitor when instance are created, and this was throwing off my test code. I had to effectively disable these checks to get it to run without failures. Then there was a similar issue with expect(), which doesn't work if part of the expression is non-copiable. I reported these issues to them.

https://github.com/boost-ext/ut (for better user interface when defining tests without macros)

https://github.com/boost-ext/ut from Kris Jusiak is worth checking

C++: C++ has quite a number of benchmarking libraries some of the recent ones involving C++ 20's flexibility. The most notable being Google Bench and UT. C does not have many specific benchmarking libraries, but you can easily integrate C code with C++ benchmarking libraries in order to test the performance of your C code.

UT

In Boost.UT there is a number of different styles to add a parametrized test case. All of them are pretty cryptic bue to heavy isage of oeverloaded operators of custom "non-public" classes. Except for the for-loop method, in all other methods the list of parameter values goes after the test procedure definition. I find this inconvenient, as I want to see list of parameter value next to the test name. This is what I used to from the times I was coding a lot of unit tests in C#.

IMHO the best approach is to avoid the problem by applying TDD. Then there is very little need to debug anything. But otherwise, there is https://github.com/mikael-s-persson/templight for compile-time debugging which is pretty cool and having something like `expect(auto... args) static_asert(args...); assert(args...);` may help with being able to debug at run-time and get the coverage (though, the code has has to compile aka pass first).

For sure. There has been https://github.com/mikael-s-persson/templight and https://github.com/metashell/metashell. The former allowed to basically step into the compilation process (after the fact).

Double not sure whether practical, though, https://github.com/mikael-s-persson/templight approched the problem back in the day

Is there a function in lsp-mode, or ccls directly to find the compilation command associated with the file (if any) in the current buffer? If not, would another package (rtags, ede-compdb, irony-cdb) help query the compilation database without needing to use the rest of the package? The main use case is to plug it into other tools such as rmsbolt and templight that "compile" code to provide additional information.