This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [rfc] clean up linespec.c
- From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>
- To: Elena Zannoni <ezannoni at redhat dot com>
- Cc: David Carlton <carlton at math dot stanford dot edu>,gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com, Jim Blandy <jimb at redhat dot com>,Fernando Nasser <fnasser at redhat dot com>
- Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 12:40:03 -0500
- Subject: Re: [rfc] clean up linespec.c
- References: <ro1u1iub2mv.fsf@jackfruit.Stanford.EDU> <15818.41778.383411.897868@localhost.redhat.com>
On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 12:30:26PM -0500, Elena Zannoni wrote:
> > It turns out that decode_line_1 isn't quite as crazy a function as I'd
> > feared. There's a reasonable flow of control underneath (well, at
> > least there is once you get rid of the unnecessary goto's), though
> > admittedly the C++ part of the function is still pretty complicated,
> > and the function will always consist of a bunch of special cases.
> >
>
> Having c++ separated in functions, is a first step in moving C++
> support to its own files.....:-)
:)
> > I hope I didn't break anything, though my only real evidence for that
> > is that I didn't get any new regressions on the testsuite. (I have no
> > idea how comprehensive the testsuite's coverage of linespec is.)
>
> ah, gcov data would be useful here... :-)
Gcov data is good and all, but it's a required-but-not-sufficient for
coverage testing. I've been doing some coverage tests on
c-typeprint.c, and I would never have found the char *constvarname bug
that was fixed recently.
It's still impressively useful though :)
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer