On Thursday, July 9, 2015, Garrett Wollman <woll...@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> wrote:
> In article > <capq4ffvem2uzi-qptm_6msneelwft814g1ke4rgxu6mrzwy...@mail.gmail.com > <javascript:;>>, > oliver.pin...@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@freebsd.org <javascript:;> mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org > <javascript:;>" > +1 _______________________________________________ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
