|
From: <sv...@va...> - 2005-05-03 17:36:15
|
Author: sewardj
Date: 2005-05-03 18:36:08 +0100 (Tue, 03 May 2005)
New Revision: 3606
Modified:
trunk/memcheck/tests/buflen_check.stderr.exp
Log:
Fix expected output. It could be that having CFI-based tracebacks
made the stack traces in the error messages less crappy.
Modified: trunk/memcheck/tests/buflen_check.stderr.exp
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
--- trunk/memcheck/tests/buflen_check.stderr.exp 2005-05-03 16:44:31 UTC =
(rev 3605)
+++ trunk/memcheck/tests/buflen_check.stderr.exp 2005-05-03 17:36:08 UTC =
(rev 3606)
@@ -1,13 +1,11 @@
Syscall param socketcall.getsockname(name) points to unaddressable byte(=
s)
at 0x........: getsockname (in /...libc...)
- by 0x........: __libc_start_main (in /...libc...)
- by 0x........: ...
+ by 0x........: main (buflen_check.c:18)
Address 0x........ is not stack'd, malloc'd or (recently) free'd
=20
Syscall param socketcall.getsockname(namelen_in) points to unaddressable=
byte(s)
at 0x........: getsockname (in /...libc...)
- by 0x........: __libc_start_main (in /...libc...)
- by 0x........: ...
+ by 0x........: main (buflen_check.c:19)
Address 0x........ is not stack'd, malloc'd or (recently) free'd
getsockname(1) failed
getsockname(2) failed
|