Re: [PATCH/RFC] t0060: basename("//") is implementation defined

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 01/14/2016 08:00 AM, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
Hi Torsten,

On Wed, 13 Jan 2016, tboegi@xxxxxx wrote:

diff --git a/test-path-utils.c b/test-path-utils.c
index 4ab68ac..db0bb39 100644
--- a/test-path-utils.c
+++ b/test-path-utils.c
@@ -142,7 +142,9 @@ static struct test_data dirname_data[] = {
  	{ ".",               "."      },
  	{ "..",              "."      },
  	{ "/",               "/"      },
+#if defined(NO_LIBGEN_H)
  	{ "//",              "//"     },
+#endif
This would miss faulty implementations that return completely bogus
outputs for the "//" input. Not very likely, I agree, but the entire
intention of this regression test is to verify that Git's expectations are
met (and to document those expectations).

I hope you like the alternative patch I just sent out.
Yepp, looks good. Thanks for the work.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]