This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sourceware.org mailing list for the glibc project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [PATCH v3][BZ 14561] Testcase


On 06/11/2013 05:05 AM, OndÅej BÃlka wrote:
>> Mention BZ#.
>>
> Done. 

Thanks.

>>> +do_test (void)
>>> +{
>>> +  char buf[1000], *p;
>>
>> Big enough?
>>
> Buffer here is used only for single sequence and then reset to
> beginning. A 1000 bytes should be enough.
> 
> I was ending on first failure so I decided to collect all failures.

I also like that. Terminating on first failure is problematic because
it means you need to keep re-running the tests to detect subsequent
failures and that's annoying. Thanks.

>>> +#define FAIL {                                                                \
>>> +    fputs ("Inconsisted results for sequence:\n",stderr);                     \
>>> +    fputs (buf, stderr);                                                      \
>>> +    return 1;                                                                 \
>>> +}
>>
>> Please make this a function so you can easily put a breakpoint on it.
>>
> Done.

Thanks.

>> Looks good to me with above two changes and proof 
>> that 1000 bytes is enough, otherwise use 8kb, which
>> is certainly large enough for 6144 (64*6*13) bytes
>> of messages.
>>
> When this is good and rand is also good is this OK to commit them both?

This test looks good to me now.

What is the status of the rand changes? Did Roland request a new symbol
or are we OK with just changing this behaviour?

> Ondra
> 
> 	* bug-srand-srandom-dependency.c: New file.
> 	* Makefile (tests): Add it.

OK for me.

Cheers,
Carlos.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]