>Martin Sebor wrote: > > >AFAICT, this changes the behavior of the loop in a way we don't >want: the loop will no longer break on the first failure and might >generate dozens of lines of output. The effect I think we want is: > > if (!rw_assert (array [i] == result [i], 0, line, > "randomly shuffled sequence failed to match " > "the expected result (data portability failure) " > "%d != %d at %zu", > array [i], result [i], i + 1)) > break; >
Yes, you are right. Fix committed to 4.2.x in r653966. >Martin >
