On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 12:46:52PM -0700, Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia wrote: > We never use child[3], so it's state is undefined. > > This issue seems to have existed since the test was first > written: 92788e677be79bd04e5ef140f4ced50ad8b1bf8e > > Signed-off-by: Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia <[email protected]> > CC: Peter Hutterer <[email protected]> > ---
Reviewed-by: Peter Hutterer <[email protected]> and merged into my next, thanks. Cheers, Peter > test/list.c | 4 ++-- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/test/list.c b/test/list.c > index 82d2327..f9f54ee 100644 > --- a/test/list.c > +++ b/test/list.c > @@ -137,7 +137,7 @@ static void > test_xorg_list_del(void) > { > struct parent parent = { 0 }; > - struct child child[3]; > + struct child child[2]; > struct child *c; > > xorg_list_init(&parent.children); > @@ -178,8 +178,8 @@ test_xorg_list_del(void) > xorg_list_add(&child[0].node, &parent.children); > xorg_list_del(&parent.children); > assert(xorg_list_is_empty(&parent.children)); > + assert(!xorg_list_is_empty(&child[0].node)); > assert(!xorg_list_is_empty(&child[1].node)); > - assert(!xorg_list_is_empty(&child[2].node)); > } > > static void > -- > 1.7.11.5 > _______________________________________________ [email protected]: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
