On 5/13/24 8:12 AM, Bruno Haible wrote:
> For a new file that is not based on another file, it's sufficient to say
> "New file." No need to go into the details of what the file contains.
> The reason is that the purpose of a ChangeLog is "so that people investigating
> bugs in the future will know
Hi Collin,
In the ChangeLog entry:
+ * tests/test-execinfo.c (test_backtrace): New function. Simply test that
+ the symbols defined in execinfo.h can be used.
+ (main): Use it.
For a new file that is not based on another file, it's sufficient to say
"New file." No need to go in
Hi Collin,
> The reasoning for printing the backtrace was so that the output can be
> compared with the BSD implementation or various linker flags, etc.
> Seemed like it might be helpful.
Yes, of course it is helpful. Some functions have a specification that
leaves a lot of room to the implementa
On 5/12/24 4:39 AM, Collin Funk wrote:
> I left backtrace_symbols_fd untested because I did not see too much
> benefit in testing it. Its job is similar enough to backtrace_symbols
> but would require thinking about module dependencies and headers for
> create () and unlink (), or similar.
I forgo
Hi Bruno,
On 5/12/24 3:43 AM, Bruno Haible wrote:
> Reading through your test, I notice that when size == 0 && symbols != NULL,
> the symbols pointer is not freed. So I went to look deeper.
>
> Reading through the documentation at
> https://www.gnu.org/software/libc/manual/html_node/Backtraces.ht
Hi Collin,
> I've pushed a basic test for execinfo. Since BSD needs to link to
> -lexecinfo unlike glibc. Should catch any bugs that occur there or if
> another system adds it as a library.
Thanks.
Reading through your test, I notice that when size == 0 && symbols != NULL,
the symbols pointer is
20:46:12 -0700
Subject: [PATCH] execinfo: Add tests.
* modules/execinfo-tests: New file.
* tests/test-execinfo.c (test_backtrace): New function. Simply test that
the symbols defined in execinfo.h can be used.
(main): Use it.
---
ChangeLog | 8 +++
modules/execinfo-tests
