Re: [PATCH v2 12/14] tests/test-logging: Fix test for -dfilter 0..0xffffffffffffffff

[Markus Armbruster]

Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <address@hidden> writes:

> Hi Markus,
>
> On 4/22/20 3:07 PM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> Fixes: 58e19e6e7914354242a67442d0006f9e31684d1a
>> Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <address@hidden>
>> ---
>>   tests/test-logging.c | 4 ++--
>>   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/tests/test-logging.c b/tests/test-logging.c
>> index 6387e4933f..8580b82420 100644
>> --- a/tests/test-logging.c
>> +++ b/tests/test-logging.c
>> @@ -73,10 +73,10 @@ static void test_parse_range(void)
>>       g_assert(qemu_log_in_addr_range(UINT64_MAX));
>>       g_assert_false(qemu_log_in_addr_range(UINT64_MAX - 1));
>>   -    qemu_set_dfilter_ranges("0..0xffffffffffffffff", &err);
>> +    qemu_set_dfilter_ranges("0..0xffffffffffffffff", &error_abort);
>
> Why sometime use this form, ...
>
>>       g_assert(qemu_log_in_addr_range(0));
>>       g_assert(qemu_log_in_addr_range(UINT64_MAX));
>> -
>> +
>>       qemu_set_dfilter_ranges("2..1", &err);
>>       error_free_or_abort(&err);
>
> ... and then this other form?

The first form crashes when the function sets an error.

The second from crashes when the function doesn't set an error, or else
frees the error.

All clear?