So what is wrong with v3 C++

Michael Elizabeth Chastain
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.

  Modularity suggests that the test suite goes with the software.
  Parsimony suggests that the test appear in just one place.

  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.


More information about the Gdb mailing list