"did you intend to multiply instead?" is what cppcheck helpful says and
it is absolutely right. Doesn't make a whole lot of a difference though
as we are talking about 'char' in this testcase, but just to be sure.
Reported-By: cppcheck
Git-Dch: Ignore
// ensure the memory is as predictably messed up
#define APT_INIT_READBACK \
char readback[20]; \
// ensure the memory is as predictably messed up
#define APT_INIT_READBACK \
char readback[20]; \
- memset(readback, 'D', sizeof(readback)/sizeof(readback[0])); \
+ memset(readback, 'D', sizeof(readback)*sizeof(readback[0])); \
readback[19] = '\0';
#define EXPECT_N_STR(expect, actual) \
EXPECT_EQ(0, strncmp(expect, actual, strlen(expect)));
readback[19] = '\0';
#define EXPECT_N_STR(expect, actual) \
EXPECT_EQ(0, strncmp(expect, actual, strlen(expect)));
+ {
+ APT_INIT_READBACK
+ char const * const expect = "DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD";
+ EXPECT_STREQ(expect,readback);
+ EXPECT_N_STR(expect, readback);
+ }
{
APT_INIT_READBACK
char const * const expect = "This";
{
APT_INIT_READBACK
char const * const expect = "This";