Deletes the skip annotation from g_cancellable_source_new(). This was
originally added because GSource wasn't introspectable, but this is no
longer an issue as G_TYPE_SOURCE was added in 2.30.
Fixes: #1877
These are copies of the existing tests for `g_time_val_from_iso8601()`,
with the test strings which fail for `GDateTime` commented out. This is
OK, as it’s documented as only accepting a subset of ISO 8601 (and for
some of the test vectors, it’s debatable whether they’re actually valid
ISO 8601, depending on how you interpret the valid bounds of timezone
offsets — some interpretations of the available documentation would say
that timezone offsets should never be ≥24 hours or ≥60 minutes).
There is one test string which is not accepted by
`g_time_val_from_iso8601()` but which is accepted by `GDateTime`, as
`g_date_time_new_from_iso8601()` actually accepts RFC 3339, which is a
little more liberal than ISO 8601. Fun times. See
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3339#section-5.6.
Signed-off-by: Philip Withnall <withnall@endlessm.com>
Some malformed ISO 8601 date/time strings were causing an assertion
failure when passed to `g_date_time_new_from_iso8601()`, due to a
mismatch between the bounds checking of timezone offsets in `GDateTime`
and `GTimeZone`. Fix that and add a unit test for it.
oss-fuzz#16101
Signed-off-by: Philip Withnall <withnall@endlessm.com>
When resetting a key in the delayed settings backend,
g_settings_backend_changed() was not called to notify the backend of
the change.
Signed-off-by: Philip Withnall <withnall@endlessm.com>
Fixes: #1309
Since we transitioned from Bugzilla to GitLab, we have two forms of bug
references in the GLib source code: old (but still relevant) Bugzilla
links, and newer GitLab links. We can’t use a single base for the two,
so have to either build incorrect URIs, or provide the full URI in
g_test_bug().
It’s always seemed a bit of an over-optimisation to provide the bug base
separately from the bug ID, so relax the assertions and documentation
around g_test_bug_base() so that g_test_bug() can be used on its own.
The old usage patterns are still supported unchanged.
Signed-off-by: Philip Withnall <withnall@endlessm.com>
This fix build error for projects that use gnome.compile_resources()
when glib is built as a subproject and not installed on the build
machine.
Note that this is not working for cross compilation cases, because it
would require to compile everything twice (for host and build machines).
A better solution would be to rewrite those tools in python. See #1859.
On x86 (and apparently most other Linux architectures), the union
with the signal handler is the first member, but on MIPS Linux,
the first struct member is sa_flags (possibly done to be compatible
with IRIX). Zero out the struct and fill in the field we want by name.
Signed-off-by: Simon McVittie <smcv@collabora.com>
When using the mingw printf shims for C99 compat the msvc format specifiers don't work
and the build fails.
Ideally we would use glib functions which abstract this away, but in the error handler context
we shouldn't call back into glib. And for scanf we don't have a glib wrapper.
Instead call the "secure" versions provided by the win32 API (_snprintf_s/fprintf_s/sscanf_s)
which mingw doesn't replace.
We currently check in multiple places if vsnprintf/snprintf/printf are
good and if not use gnulib. This case was not checking for printf which
made the build fail with recent mingw-w64 where snprintf was improved to
pass all glib checks but printf still doesn't.
Commit 6f55306e04 unintendedly broke error handling for other
error conditions than ENOENT along the path, like EPERM. It wanted
to ignore ENOENT on all elements except the last in the path, but
in doing that it ignored any other error that might happen on the
last element.
https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/glib/issues/1852
You may expect funny effects from passing invalid UTF-8, but not
that funny. The assert will probably be a better and more immediate
confirmation of an error than invalid writes under the address of the
string copy.
https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/glib/issues/1863
"Uninitialized value" is partially correct, since it has not been
initialized with a type, but it's more precise to say
"zero-initialized value". It is still a programming error to pass a
pointer to uninitialized memory with arbitrary contents as the value.
Signed-off-by: Simon McVittie <smcv@collabora.com>
