We set G_ANALYZER_ANALYZING to 1 when clang supporting static analyzing before,
but this will cause compilation error when -Werror=return-type is used and the
static analyzer is not in use because g_error static function only has
__attribute__((analyzer_noreturn)), which is useless for normal compilation.
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=741901
The documentation was not very clear about the handling
of the '#' comment markers. State clearly how these are
handled by the getter and the setter.
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=479730
Normally, recent PCRE behaves as if certain patterns were replaced
by a more "possessive" pattern that gives the same answer for normal
regex matching, but is more efficient. However, the modified pattern
produces fewer results under DFA. If we want the full set of results
we have to apply PCRE_NO_AUTO_POSSESS, and that's a compile-time flag.
This currently only affects a system PCRE, but would also work fine for
an internal PCRE 8.34 or later if the embedded copy is updated.
Bug: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=733325
Reviewed-by: Christian Persch <chpe@gnome.org>
Removed all mentions of GLib file name encoding referring to
the environment strings. The env var content has no defined relation
to GLib's notion of filename encoding, or any encoding whatsoever.
It would be wrong to pass all UTF-8 strings through
g_filename_from_utf8() in order to put them into the environment,
for one thing.
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=738185
Only add [OPTION...] to the usage line if the context
has options. And shorten "Application Options" to just
"Options" if we don't have to differentiate from other
kinds of options.
This was fixed in 8.32, so if we have that version, assert that it is
fixed; if we don't (e.g. the current internal pcre), still don't
assert that it *isn't* fixed.
Bug: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=733325
Reviewed-by: Christian Persch <chpe@gnome.org>
Signed-off-by: Simon McVittie <simon.mcvittie@collabora.co.uk>
Instead of INCLUDES, which is deprecated in automake. Using AM_CPPFLAGS
also gives the hint that the -D argument should be a CPPFLAGS variable,
rather than CFLAGS.
I searched all files that mention g_test_run, and replaced most
g_print() calls. This avoids interfering with TAP. Exceptions:
* gio/tests/network-monitor: a manual mode that is run by
"./network-monitor --watch" is unaffected
* glib/gtester.c: not a test
* glib/gtestutils.c: not a test
* glib/tests/logging.c: specifically exercising g_print()
* glib/tests/markup-parse.c: a manual mode that is run by
"./markup-parse --cdata-as-text" is unaffected
* glib/tests/testing.c: specifically exercising capture of stdout
in subprocesses
* glib/tests/utils.c: captures a subprocess's stdout
* glib/tests/testglib.c: exercises an assertion failure in g_print()
Bug: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=725981
Reviewed-by: Colin Walters <walters@verbum.org>
Signed-off-by: Simon McVittie <simon.mcvittie@collabora.co.uk>
If we call time(NULL), then do something (however trivial), then call
g_date_time_new_now_utc(), they do not necessarily share a seconds
value. Let's say the gmtime call takes 2ms. time(NULL) could
return xx:xx:23 when the time is actually xx:xx:23.999999, resulting
in the g_date_time_new_now_utc() happening at xx:xx:24.000001. This is
unlikely, but did happen to me in a parallel build:
GLib:ERROR:.../glib/tests/gdatetime.c:674:test_GDateTime_now_utc: assertion failed (tm.tm_sec == g_date_time_get_second (dt)): (23 == 24)
A similar argument applies to the rollover from xx:23:59.999999 to
xx:24:00, so comparing seconds with a 1s "fuzz" or a >= comparison
is not sufficient; and so on into higher-order fields.
I haven't seen the other tests that use _now() fail in the same way,
but they could.
Bug: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=749080
Reviewed-by: Philip Withnall <philip.withnall@collabora.co.uk>
Signed-off-by: Simon McVittie <simon.mcvittie@collabora.co.uk>
It's unhelpful to get an error saying that stderr didn't match a
desired pattern, or matched an undesired pattern, without also
telling you what *was* on stderr. Similarly, if a test subprocess
exits 1, there's probably something useful on its stderr that
could have told you why.
Bug: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=748534
Signed-off-by: Simon McVittie <simon.mcvittie@collabora.co.uk>
Reviewed-by: Dan Winship <danw@gnome.org>
Unlike, say, g_variant_new(), which returns a floating reference.
g_variant_parse() returns a non-floating one, so must always have
g_variant_unref() called on the result.
Our signal handler calls write() on a pipe or an eventfd in order to
deliver the notification. It's unlikely, but this could fail, setting
errno. We even check the case that it fails with EINTR.
If it does set errno, then it has potentially blown away the value or
errno that the preempted code cared about (ie: if the signal arrived
shortly after a system call but before errno was checked).
Wrap the handler with code to save errno.
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=741791
Fix a few typical problems, and also stop wrapping the inline definition
of g_steal_pointer in parens, since it is not necessary and it confuses
gtk-doc.
It was added after G_END_DECLS, outside the #ifdef G_PLATFORM_WIN32,
and inside a #ifndef __GTK_DOC_IGNORE__ block. So it was missing from
the doc.
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=743661
• Clarify that GError** parameters are for the return of _newly
allocated_ GError*s.
• Clarify that errors may need to be checked for explicitly if the
return value of a function doesn’t reliably indicate them.
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=741779
i.e. That calling g_timeout_add() from a thread other than the main one
probably doesn’t do what you want. Same for g_idle_add() and the
*_full() variants.
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=741779
It was documented before, but wasn’t especially clear. Doing
if (X)
g_free (X);
is apparently quite a pervasive real-world anti-pattern, so perhaps it
could be documented more explicitly.
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=741779
Just in case people have forgotten their basic algorithms course. Seen
in some pretty terrible code in the wild; hopefully mentioning the cost
in the documentation will make people think twice about using a counter
variable when iterating over a linked list.
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=741779
