On 04/24/2010 04:21 AM, Bruno Haible wrote:
> Eric Blake wrote:
>> +open_memstream-tests: new module
>> +* modules/open_memstream-tests: New file.
>
> I would mark it as an unportable test, like this:
>
> Status:
> unportable-test
Sure, although that designation can be removed with m
Eric Blake wrote:
> + open_memstream-tests: new module
> + * modules/open_memstream-tests: New file.
I would mark it as an unportable test, like this:
Status:
unportable-test
The reason is that there are (so far) 7 types of stdio implementations:
- FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, DragonF
On 04/23/2010 05:21 PM, Paul Eggert wrote:
> Eric Blake writes:
>
>> + ASSERT (STREQ (buf, "hello my world"));
>> + ASSERT (len = strlen (buf));
>
> These two tests, plus some others, assume that open_memstream allocates
> a buffer in which the output is NUL-terminated. This isn't a portable
Eric Blake writes:
> + ASSERT (STREQ (buf, "hello my world"));
> + ASSERT (len = strlen (buf));
These two tests, plus some others, assume that open_memstream allocates
a buffer in which the output is NUL-terminated. This isn't a portable
assumption (though it is often true, which I expect is
Test passes on Linux and cygwin 1.7, but fails everywhere that
open_memstream is not implemented.
* modules/open_memstream-tests: New file.
* tests/test-open_memstream.c: Likewise.
Signed-off-by: Eric Blake
---
ChangeLog|6
modules/open_memstream-tests | 12 ++
