[cplus] An initial use of the canonicalizer
Michael Elizabeth Chastain
Wed Dec 31 01:43:00 GMT 2003
> 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.
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.
More information about the Gdb-patches