Ping on this one - do we want to squash these compile warnings, yes? :)
On 08/11/2017 12:06, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
From: Tvrtko Ursulin <[email protected]>
Add helpers for direct write to stderr to consolidate the code
and avoid the unused result warning in build.
v2: Use igt_ignore_warn since it is questionable whether igt_assert
is safe in signal handlers. (Chris Wilson)
Signed-off-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <[email protected]>
---
lib/igt_core.c | 23 ++++++++++++++++-------
1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/lib/igt_core.c b/lib/igt_core.c
index 538a4472e209..e866bf995872 100644
--- a/lib/igt_core.c
+++ b/lib/igt_core.c
@@ -1239,7 +1239,7 @@ static const char hex[] = "0123456789abcdef";
static void
xputch(int c)
{
- write(STDERR_FILENO, (const void *) &c, 1);
+ igt_ignore_warn(write(STDERR_FILENO, (const void *) &c, 1));
}
static int
@@ -1384,13 +1384,23 @@ xprintf(const char *fmt, ...)
va_end(ap);
}
+static void __write_stderr(const char *str, size_t len)
+{
+ igt_ignore_warn(write(STDERR_FILENO, str, len));
+}
+
+static void write_stderr(const char *str)
+{
+ __write_stderr(str, strlen(str));
+}
+
static void print_backtrace_sig_safe(void)
{
unw_cursor_t cursor;
unw_context_t uc;
int stack_num = 0;
- write(STDERR_FILENO, "Stack trace: \n", 15);
+ write_stderr("Stack trace: \n");
unw_getcontext(&uc);
unw_init_local(&cursor, &uc);
@@ -1899,11 +1909,10 @@ static void fatal_sig_handler(int sig)
continue;
if (handled_signals[i].name_len) {
- igt_assert_eq(write(STDERR_FILENO, "Received signal ",
16),
- 16);
- igt_assert_eq(write(STDERR_FILENO,
handled_signals[i].name, handled_signals[i].name_len),
- handled_signals[i].name_len);
- igt_assert_eq(write(STDERR_FILENO, ".\n", 2), 2);
+ write_stderr("Received signal ");
+ __write_stderr(handled_signals[i].name,
+ handled_signals[i].name_len);
+ write_stderr(".\n");
}
if (crash_signal(sig)) {
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
