[Crackerjack-devel] [DISCUSS] Improve Code Quality of Crackerjack

[Caspar Z. <cz...@re...>]

Hi list, I open this thread to discuss the plan and implementation of 
improving crackerjack code quality, anyone who is interested in it is 
welcomed to join the discussion.

What I've met for now are as follows:

1) Handling non-existed syscalls. I wonder if anyone got a chance to 
look into LTP's codes, maybe we can backport some codes from it to 
handle this issue. Anyway, I think it is necessary to handle non-existed 
syscalls, else the compilation will not pass.

2) feature test macros. I don't know much about that, but I guess 
_GNU_SOURCE macro is necessary, while others like: SUSv2 (UNIX 98) which 
needs _XOPEN_SOURCE defined and value > 500, is it necessary? does 
crackerjack supposed to be run on Unix systems?

3) hard-coded syscalls. take ssetmask testcase, in Line 25:
syscall(69, SIGALRM);

Different arch has different number for ssetmask() syscall, we shouldn't 
use hard-coded number.

4) Windows ^M character and non-English comments: see delete_module03 
testcase.

That's all so far, will add more items if I find.

Thanks,
Caspar

-- 
Quality Assurance Associate (Kernel) in
Red Hat Software (Beijing) Co., R&D Branch

TEL: +86-10-62608150
WEB: http://www.redhat.com/