From: Caspar Z. <cz...@re...> - 2010-12-21 10:29:39
|
On 12/17/2010 01:39 PM, Caspar Zhang wrote: > 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? fixed one in r1004, will fix them if I find more similar defects. > > 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. fixed in r999, will fix them if I find more similar defects. > > 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/ |