On 27.06.2017 10:37, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 27.06.2017 07:09, Thomas Huth wrote:
>> This way, the code can be compiled with "-Wwrite-strings", too.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> Not sure whether we want to enable "-Wwrite-strings" globally (since
>> strings in kvm-unit-test are theoretically writable if the test is
>> running without MMU), so I only fixed the code here, without adding
>> it to the Makefile. But if we agree that it is a good idea I can
>> respin the patch and add it to the Makefile, too.
>
> Make sense to me. I'd vote for adding it as long as all targets can be
> compiled without any problems.
>
>>
>> lib/report.c | 6 +++---
>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/lib/report.c b/lib/report.c
>> index b002d21..c0a701f 100644
>> --- a/lib/report.c
>> +++ b/lib/report.c
>> @@ -81,9 +81,9 @@ void report_prefix_pop(void)
>> static void va_report(const char *msg_fmt,
>> bool pass, bool xfail, bool skip, va_list va)
>> {
>> - char *prefix = skip ? "SKIP"
>> - : xfail ? (pass ? "XPASS" : "XFAIL")
>> - : (pass ? "PASS" : "FAIL");
>> + const char *prefix = skip ? "SKIP"
>> + : xfail ? (pass ? "XPASS" : "XFAIL")
>> + : (pass ? "PASS" : "FAIL");
>
> Hmm, think I liked the old indentation better. (":" directly below the
> matching "?")
Oh, right, thanks! That apparently happens when sending patches too
early in the morning ;-)
I'll wait for some more comments about whether to include
"-Wwrite-strings" or not, then I'll respin this patch.
Thomas
