On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 08:48:57 +0100
Markus Armbruster wrote:
> [Note cc: Luiz]
>
> Peter Maydell writes:
>
> > On 2 February 2013 21:37, Andreas Färber wrote:
> >> Am 02.02.2013 22:19, schrieb Peter Maydell:
> >>> It's OK and expected for visitors to return errors when presented with
> >>> the
[Note cc: Luiz]
Peter Maydell writes:
> On 2 February 2013 21:37, Andreas Färber wrote:
>> Am 02.02.2013 22:19, schrieb Peter Maydell:
>>> It's OK and expected for visitors to return errors when presented with
>>> the fuzz test's random data. This means the test harness needs to
>>> handle them
On 2 February 2013 21:37, Andreas Färber wrote:
> Am 02.02.2013 22:19, schrieb Peter Maydell:
>> It's OK and expected for visitors to return errors when presented with
>> the fuzz test's random data. This means the test harness needs to
>> handle them; check for and free any error after each visit
Am 02.02.2013 22:19, schrieb Peter Maydell:
> It's OK and expected for visitors to return errors when presented with
> the fuzz test's random data. This means the test harness needs to
> handle them; check for and free any error after each visitor call,
> and only free the string returned by visit_
It's OK and expected for visitors to return errors when presented with
the fuzz test's random data. This means the test harness needs to
handle them; check for and free any error after each visitor call,
and only free the string returned by visit_type_str if visit_type_str
succeeded.
This fixes a
