Date: Tue, 8 May 2001 14:30:15 +0300 (IDT)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: Hans-Bernhard Broeker <broeker AT physik DOT rwth-aachen DOT de>
cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: snprintf?
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10105081203500.9177-100000@acp3bf>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1010508142902.5837C-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk


On Tue, 8 May 2001, Hans-Bernhard Broeker wrote:

> On Tue, 8 May 2001, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> 
> [...]
> > didn't cope well with this (setting a pointer to NULL is looking for
> > SIGSEGV's ;-), and IIRC the test harness didn't test all of the
> > possible cases (I forget the details).  The case of n == 0 is very
> > important for snprintf, so it must be rock-solid.
> 
> As a reminder, let me point out that we do have tools to check whether a
> test case exercised all of the special cases in a given function: that's
> exactly what gcov is for.

Yes, `gcov' is an important test tool, but it only helps if the untested 
situations have special code branches dedicated to them.