Re: [PATCH v2] t-strvec: use test_msg()

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

 



On Fri, Jul 05, 2024 at 07:03:36PM +0200, René Scharfe wrote:

> diff --git a/t/unit-tests/t-strvec.c b/t/unit-tests/t-strvec.c
> index d4615ab06d..236203af61 100644
> --- a/t/unit-tests/t-strvec.c
> +++ b/t/unit-tests/t-strvec.c
> @@ -17,12 +17,12 @@ static void check_strvec_loc(const char *loc, struct strvec *vec, ...)
>  			break;
> 
>  		if (!check_uint(vec->nr, >, nr) ||
> -		    !check_uint(vec->alloc, >, nr) ||
> -		    !check_str(vec->v[nr], str)) {
> -			struct strbuf msg = STRBUF_INIT;
> -			strbuf_addf(&msg, "strvec index %"PRIuMAX, (uintmax_t) nr);
> -			test_assert(loc, msg.buf, 0);
> -			strbuf_release(&msg);
> +		    !check_uint(vec->alloc, >, nr)) {
> +			va_end(ap);
> +			return;
> +		}
> +		if (!check_str(vec->v[nr], str)) {
> +			test_msg("     nr: %"PRIuMAX, (uintmax_t)nr);
>  			va_end(ap);
>  			return;
>  		}

The "loc" parameter to the function is now unused. Should it be removed,
or is it a bug that we are no longer reporting the caller's location?
Should we be using check_str_loc() in the post-image?

-Peff




[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]

  Powered by Linux