On Thursday, July 9, 2015, Garrett Wollman <wollman_at_hergotha.csail.mit.edu> wrote: > In article > <CAPQ4ffvEm2uzi-QpTm_6MsNeELWfT814G1kE4RGXU6mrZWYPeg_at_mail.gmail.com > <javascript:;>>, > oliver.pinter_at_hardenedbsd.org <javascript:;> writes: > > >Btw, I have found this is atf's documantation: > >atf_tc_expect_signal(SIGSEGV, "reaseon"), with this, we could mark the > >specific test case could "fail" / or expect to coredump. > > No. > > I'm not sure why people are having trouble understanding this. > > The test in question is not valid C. It is entirely erroneous, and > should be deleted. Merely computing the value "(void *)-1" is allowed > to perform LITERALLY ANY ACTION AT ALL, including turning your > computer into a frog. The compiler is free to implement this as a > call to abort() if it chooses. Testing this is nonsensical. > > -GAWollman > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-current_at_freebsd.org <javascript:;> mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe_at_freebsd.org > <javascript:;>" > +1Received on Thu Jul 09 2015 - 12:14:17 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:40:58 UTC