This is the mail archive of the
gdb@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: So what is wrong with v3 C++
- To: tromey at redhat dot com
- Subject: Re: So what is wrong with v3 C++
- From: Michael Elizabeth Chastain <chastain at cygnus dot com>
- Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 23:57:17 -0700
- Cc: ac131313 at cygnus dot com, dan at cgsoftware dot com, gdb at sources dot redhat dot com
Hi Tom,
> Unfortunately nobody wrote new tests as they wrote new code. I think
> I mentioned the test suite to whoever wrote the new demangler, but was
> ignored. Anyway I do think that the other goal still applies.
> Putting new tests in gdb is, imnsho, not as helpful as putting them
> into the demangler's own test suite.
Pro:
Modularity suggests that the test suite goes with the software.
Parsimony suggests that the test appear in just one place.
Con:
Defensiveness suggests that gdb tests this library facility that it needs.
Ecology suggests that it get tested where people are actually testing.
> If there is an administrative overhead that makes this hard, then that
> is the barrier that should be lowered.
I think of it as "ecology" rather than "administration".
Gdb people are used to running only the gdb test suite.
I just tried this in one of my build trees:
% cd native/build/libiberty
% make check
/bin/sh /horton/chastain/fsf/2001-06-23/source/libiberty/testsuite/regress-demangle /horton/chastain/fsf/2001-06-23/source/libiberty/testsuite/demangle-expected
All 645 tests passed
I wrote another trivial script. I'll add this to my Sunday reports.
Michael