Eric Blake wrote:
> According to Jim Meyering on 2/19/2010 3:45 AM:
>>> Hum, that one I'm not sure. In the case of virBufferGrow failure,
>>> we just did va_end(locarg); in the loop before, so going to cleanup
>>> there does it twice, and I'm not sure it's legal. Probably simpler to
>>> add just va_end(argptr); before return in that case and drop the
>>> cleanup: target.
>>
>> Good catch. Corrected, as you suggest:
>>
>> +++ b/.gnulib
>> @@ -1 +1 @@
>> -Subproject commit 11fbc57405a118e6ec9a3ebc19bbf5ececdae4d6
>> +Subproject commit a1d565aa5b47ec56243e74d4ac8b4988a751fef2
>
> Shouldn't that be an independent patch?
Yes.
BTW, if I were to update to the latest from gnulib,
it would break "syntax-check", due to a weakness in
maint.mk's new hash.h check.
It gets a false-positive on any inclusion of libvirt's own "hash.h":
$ git ls-files|grep hash.h
src/util/hash.h
I haven't yet decided what to do about that.
--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list