Re: [cplus] An initial use of the canonicalizer

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>]

On Tue, Dec 30, 2003 at 08:43:03PM -0500, Michael Chastain wrote:
> > That's why I'm not submitting it for mainline yet.  Sorry if I wasn't
> > clear.  The [cplus] tag means it's going on my branch.
> 
> Oh, I know.  I'd like to express my concern sooner rather than later.
> 
> > For now I'm just kludging around things so that I can see when I
> > introduce regressions on my branch.
> 
> That part is fine.
> 
> > Let's talk about the problem.  Which is more important - checking GDB
> > 6.0 against GCC HEAD, or being able to verify that I've successfully
> > canonicalized _all_ of GDB's output patterns?
> 
> I would actually pick the former, checking gdb 6.0 versus gcc HEAD.
> Here's why.
> 
> To me, the most important property of a gdb release is that it doesn't
> introduce regressions versus the previous gdb release.  I want
> *everyone* with gdb 6.0 to be able to upgrade to gdb 6.1 (except for
> explicitly deprecated things).
> 
> It's tough for me to find these regressions because the test suite has a
> lot of noise (300 non-PASS results that we routinely ignore) and bugs
> often manifest in very subtle ways.
> 
> So it helps a lot if the same test suite works with gdb 6.0 and gdb HEAD.
> Then I have to spend less time grubbing in gdb.log files.
> 
> > I'd like to consider "volatile char *" a bug when we're expecting to
> > see "char volatile*", not accept both.
> 
> That would be great with me.  Then I would see "gdb 6.0 FAIL,
> gdb HEAD PASS".  But what you did was change:
> 
>   - volatile char ?\\*
>   + .*char.* ?\\*
> 
> So there used to be a volatile required, but now there is none.
> That's the part I don't like.

That's the part that will be going away when I have more time.  I'm
going to stabilize the output first, and tighten up the testcases one
test at a time second; too many changes, otherwise.  I was just doing
whatever made for the least typing.

So you're OK if I make these tests fail when run against GDB 6.0?  I'm
a little confused by your response.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer