On Thu, 24 Jan 2013 16:24:14 -0500
Kristian Høgsberg wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 05:30:16PM +0200, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> > We handle FAIL_TEST tests by simply inverting the success flag. The
> > problem with this is, that if a FAIL_TEST fails by a SIGSEGV, it will be
> > interpreted as pas
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 05:30:16PM +0200, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> We handle FAIL_TEST tests by simply inverting the success flag. The
> problem with this is, that if a FAIL_TEST fails by a SIGSEGV, it will be
> interpreted as passed. However, no code should ever cause a SEGV, or any
> other signal
ehalf
> >Of Pekka Paalanen
> >Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 7:30 AM
> >To: wayland-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
> >Cc: Pekka Paalanen
> >Subject: [PATCH weston] tests: make signal other than ABRT a hard failure
> >
> >We handle FAIL_TEST tests by simply
>To: wayland-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
>Cc: Pekka Paalanen
>Subject: [PATCH weston] tests: make signal other than ABRT a hard failure
>
>We handle FAIL_TEST tests by simply inverting the success flag. The
>problem with this is, that if a FAIL_TEST fails by a SIGSEGV, it will be
>interpreted as pas
We handle FAIL_TEST tests by simply inverting the success flag. The
problem with this is, that if a FAIL_TEST fails by a SIGSEGV, it will be
interpreted as passed. However, no code should ever cause a SEGV, or any
other signal than ABRT. And even ABRT only in the case of an assert()
that is meant t
