On 05/16/2015 07:30 AM, Andreas Färber wrote: > Am 16.05.2015 um 00:24 schrieb Eric Blake: >> We require a C99 compiler, so let's use 'bool' instead of 'int' >> when dealing with boolean values. There are few enough clients >> to fix them all in one pass. >> >> Signed-off-by: Eric Blake <ebl...@redhat.com> >> ---
>> /** >> - * qbool_from_int(): Create a new QBool from an int >> + * qbool_from_bool(): Create a new QBool from a bool >> * >> * Return strong reference. > > Can you fix the syntax as follow-up please? > > /** > * qbool_from_bool: > * @value: ... > * > * Desc... > * > * Returns: ... > */ Sure, I can do that over all the qboject files, as a new patch. >> @@ -662,7 +662,7 @@ static void check_native_list(QObject *qobj, >> tmp = qlist_peek(qlist); >> g_assert(tmp); >> qvalue = qobject_to_qbool(tmp); >> - g_assert_cmpint(qbool_get_int(qvalue), ==, (i % 3 == 0) ? 1 : >> 0); >> + g_assert_cmpint(qbool_get_bool(qvalue), ==, i % 3 == 0); >> qobject_decref(qlist_pop(qlist)); >> } >> break; > [snip] > > I notice that we're inconsistent in using g_assert() vs. > g_assert_cmpint(). Given that GLib has a weird GBoolean, should we add a > macro qtest_assert_cmpbool() instead as follow-up? We aren't even touching GBoolean (qbool_get_bool now returns 'bool', not GBoolean; and bool promotes just fine to int under C rules), so I don't see the point to making any further changes here. Or are you proposing that the new macro would do something like 'expecting "true" but got "false"' instead of g_assert_cmpint() collapsing things to 0 and 1? > > That said, > > Reviewed-by: Andreas Färber <afaer...@suse.de> > > Regards, > Andreas > -- Eric Blake eblake redhat com +1-919-301-3266 Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
