This is the mail archive of the gdb@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the GDB 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 Sat, Jun 05, 2004 at 01:02:24PM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > From: Peter Barada <peter@the-baradas.com> > > Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2004 20:17:06 -0400 (EDT) > > > > I'd like to see a testcase being *required* to be added that shows a > > current failure *before* a patch for its fix is accepted. > > That's a noble goal, but what do we do in cases where it's > impractical? For example, a particular bug could only be raising its > ugly head in a very large program. Well, it's a tough decision. Obviously it's impractical to run many large programs to prove the behavior of GDB is correct. However, once the bug fix is committed with out a testcase, you can consider it broken already. What can break, will. BTW, over the years, I have had a lot of experience with finding bugs in large programs. It can take hours to find the bug, however, once it is found, I typically find that it can be reproduced with a very small segment of the original code. I doubt you would need to run a test on a large program in almost all cases, you will probably have to create a subset of the original code, and use that as the testcase. Bob Rossi
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] |