I agree with you that tests should pass.
I'm really not sure what was the idea behind the t_nullptrexception
test, but for me it looks like that it checks that the WinAPI raised
exception cause test failure.
On Friday 31 October 2025 22:26:38 Kirill Makurin wrote:
> I wonder if it would be more appropriate to avoid marking tests like
> this as XFAIL and instead make them PASS.
>
> Maybe we could set a signal handle for SIGSEGV and make it call
> `_exit(0)` and make `main` return 1?
>
> I'm currently writing testsuite for library I'm working on and I have
> tests which test unrecoverable situations which must terminate the
> process. The issue with marking such tests with XFAIL is that they may
> fail for another reason, but since they are XFAIL they will be
> considered to be OK.
>
> While this particular test is very simple and nothing should go wrong, I
> think it is a good idea to make tests PASS instead of XFAIL whenever
> possible.
>
> - Kirill Makurin
>
> On 10/26/2025 12:45 AM, Pali Rohár wrote:
> > Test t_nullptrexception is expected to crash.
> > ---
> > mingw-w64-crt/testcases/t_nullptrexception.c | 2 ++
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/mingw-w64-crt/testcases/t_nullptrexception.c
> b/mingw-w64-crt/testcases/t_nullptrexception.c
> > index 3c2c47adee7a..cc93c49745ff 100644
> > --- a/mingw-w64-crt/testcases/t_nullptrexception.c
> > +++ b/mingw-w64-crt/testcases/t_nullptrexception.c
> > @@ -1,9 +1,11 @@
> > #include
> > +#include
> >
> > char *p = NULL;
> >
> > int main()
> > {
> > + SetErrorMode(SetErrorMode(0) | SEM_NOGPFAULTERRORBOX);
> > printf ("Raise uncaught NULL pointer exception...\n");
> > *p = 0;
> > return 0;
_______________________________________________
Mingw-w64-public mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mingw-w64-public
