[glib] tests/signals: Disable large enumeration value test that is failing on PPC64
- From: Colin Walters <walters src gnome org>
- To: commits-list gnome org
- Cc:
- Subject: [glib] tests/signals: Disable large enumeration value test that is failing on PPC64
- Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 21:46:11 +0000 (UTC)
commit 4447d5ce1117f261e7a2a935cd9a62340d436a74
Author: Colin Walters <walters verbum org>
Date: Thu Oct 25 15:34:29 2012 -0400
tests/signals: Disable large enumeration value test that is failing on PPC64
Basically due to a combination of va_args semantics around
signed/unsigned ints, this test case fails on ppc64. At the moment,
we have as yet to find any real-world consumer with such a large
enumeration value.
Unfortunately, the possible fixes for this are extremely invasive;
we would have to define a new enum API.
Given both of these facts, we believe it makes the most sense at the
current time to simply not test this. If we at a later time determine
there is such a real-world consumer, we can look at doing the
necessary fixes.
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=686662
gobject/tests/signals.c | 5 ++++-
1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
---
diff --git a/gobject/tests/signals.c b/gobject/tests/signals.c
index b8cf26a..671e168 100644
--- a/gobject/tests/signals.c
+++ b/gobject/tests/signals.c
@@ -10,7 +10,10 @@ typedef enum {
typedef enum {
TEST_UNSIGNED_ENUM_FOO = 1,
- TEST_UNSIGNED_ENUM_BAR = 0x80000000
+ TEST_UNSIGNED_ENUM_BAR = 42
+ /* Don't test 0x80000000 for now- nothing appears to do this in
+ * practice, and it triggers GValue/GEnum bugs on ppc64.
+ */
} TestUnsignedEnum;
static GType
[
Date Prev][
Date Next] [
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Thread Index]
[
Date Index]
[
Author Index]