On 2015-05-12 06:49, Bryce Harrington wrote: > On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 01:39:29PM +0300, Pekka Paalanen wrote: >> Hi, >> >> so the motivation for this patch is to make alloc failures just exit >> the process with EXIT_FAILURE than calling abort()? Or is to stop >> relying on assert()? Or to add the printf? Or just code consistency? >> >> Would be nice to know why... maybe I'll learn in the later patches. > > Actually, the original motivation was that I needed an xmalloc. I > noticed there was xzalloc already defined but it was done differently > from the one in clients/window.c. So this patch is making the > definitions (and behavior) consistent across the codebase. > > I considered moving the functions to the shared directory but felt like > they were not yet being used widely enough to justify that. window.c > actually has a set of alloc routines that would be handy to make more > convenient for test writers. > > The assert-vs-exit difference didn't seem like a big concern here. > Either way the test harness will count it as a failure.
From Automake manual[1]: “When no test protocol is in use, an exit status of 0 from a test script will denote a success, an exit status of 77 a skipped test, an exit status of 99 an hard error, and any other exit status will denote a failure.” I think these tests should use these values to make it clear what is happening. It also allows to have working XFAILS_TESTS to abort for real on a malloc failure, if in the future we want to have such tests. [1] <http://www.gnu.org/savannah-checkouts/gnu/automake/manual/automake.html#Scripts_002dbased-Testsuites> -- Quentin “Sardem FF7” Glidic _______________________________________________ wayland-devel mailing list wayland-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel