On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 5:35 PM, Bert Huijben <b...@qqmail.nl> wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: i...@apache.org [mailto:i...@apache.org] >> Sent: dinsdag 25 juni 2013 14:01 >> To: comm...@subversion.apache.org >> Subject: svn commit: r1496434 - /subversion/trunk/subversion/svn/svn.c >> >> Author: ivan >> Date: Tue Jun 25 12:00:42 2013 >> New Revision: 1496434 >> >> URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1496434 >> Log: >> * subversion/svn/svn.c >> (svn_cl__check_cancel): Validate passed cancel baton for better test >> coverage. >> >> Modified: >> subversion/trunk/subversion/svn/svn.c >> >> Modified: subversion/trunk/subversion/svn/svn.c >> URL: >> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/subversion/trunk/subversion/svn/svn.c?rev= >> 1496434&r1=1496433&r2=1496434&view=diff >> ========================================================== >> ==================== >> --- subversion/trunk/subversion/svn/svn.c (original) >> +++ subversion/trunk/subversion/svn/svn.c Tue Jun 25 12:00:42 2013 >> @@ -1651,6 +1651,8 @@ signal_handler(int signum) >> svn_error_t * >> svn_cl__check_cancel(void *baton) >> { >> + /* Cancel baton should be always NULL in command line client. */ >> + SVN_ERR_ASSERT(baton == NULL); >> if (cancelled) >> return svn_error_create(SVN_ERR_CANCELLED, NULL, _("Caught signal")); >> else > > Nice fix. > I was thinking about adding this last weekend when I noticed the problem on > dev@s.a.o. > > Personally I would have used assert() to optimize the check away in > release mode, but I don't think this difference is measurable. > I've also considered using assert() but decided to stay with SVN_ERR_ASSERT() to keep code consistent.
-- Ivan Zhakov CTO | VisualSVN | http://www.visualsvn.com
