So what is wrong with v3 C++

Michael Elizabeth Chastain chastain@cygnus.com
Fri Jun 29 00:56:00 GMT 2001


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



More information about the Gdb mailing list