This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sourceware.org mailing list for the glibc project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 03:43:23PM -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote: [...] > Is it possible to add a test-case for this to prevent a regression and > further validate the changes do what we expect? It depends on what exactly is needed to be tested for regressions. It's relatively easy to extend tst-rfc3484.c with a check that 10/8, 172.16/12 and 192.168/16 are in the same scope as 192.0.2/24, e.g.: diff --git a/posix/tst-rfc3484.c b/posix/tst-rfc3484.c index 29e1461..db3ae1b 100644 --- a/posix/tst-rfc3484.c +++ b/posix/tst-rfc3484.c @@ -71,6 +71,9 @@ service_user *__nss_hosts_database attribute_hidden; struct sockaddr_in addrs[] = { + { .sin_family = AF_INET, .sin_addr = { h (0x0aa85f19) } }, + { .sin_family = AF_INET, .sin_addr = { h (0xac105f19) } }, + { .sin_family = AF_INET, .sin_addr = { h (0xc0000219) } }, { .sin_family = AF_INET, .sin_addr = { h (0xc0a86d1d) } }, { .sin_family = AF_INET, .sin_addr = { h (0xc0a85d03) } }, { .sin_family = AF_INET, .sin_addr = { h (0xc0a82c3d) } }, @@ -86,7 +89,7 @@ static size_t order[naddrs]; static int expected[naddrs] = { - 6, 1, 0, 3, 2, 4, 5 + 9, 4, 3, 6, 5, 7, 8, 2, 0, 1 }; With proposed change to default_scopes applied, it will literally match scope assignment rules described in section 3.2 of RFC 6724, so it's hardly worth adding a test that default_scopes matches it. However, a check that getaddrinfo actually complies with section 3.2 of RFC 6724 is not going to be so easy. -- ldv
Attachment:
pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |