From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-39488-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 2287 invoked by alias); 15 May 2005 20:23:37 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 2156 invoked from network); 15 May 2005 20:23:33 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO romy.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.66)
  by sourceware.org with SMTP; 15 May 2005 20:23:33 -0000
Received: from zaretski (IGLD-80-230-75-75.inter.net.il [80.230.75.75])
	by romy.inter.net.il (MOS 3.5.6-GR)
	with ESMTP id BFP77153 (AUTH halo1);
	Sun, 15 May 2005 23:22:04 +0300 (IDT)
Date: Sun, 15 May 2005 22:09:00 -0000
From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz@gnu.org>
To: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph@codesourcery.com>
Message-ID: <01c5598b$Blat.v2.4$7a7d85e0@zahav.net.il>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
CC: aj@suse.de, ian@airs.com, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org,
        gdb-patches@sourceware.org
In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0505151949500.5856@digraph.polyomino.org.uk>
	(joseph@codesourcery.com)
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix deftypefn in fopen_unlocked.c
Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
References: <01c55862$Blat.v2.4$44a795c0@zahav.net.il> <m3wtq0h2n7.fsf@gossamer.airs.com>
 <m3fywola3f.fsf@gromit.moeb> <Pine.LNX.4.61.0505151724350.3466@digraph.polyomino.org.uk>
 <01c55985$Blat.v2.4$50507620@zahav.net.il> <Pine.LNX.4.61.0505151949500.5856@digraph.polyomino.org.uk>
X-SW-Source: 2005-05/txt/msg00391.txt.bz2

> Date: Sun, 15 May 2005 19:52:01 +0000 (UTC)
> From: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph@codesourcery.com>
> cc: aj@suse.de, ian@airs.com, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, 
>     gdb-patches@sourceware.org
> 
> > I verified the former before I submitted the patches.  As for the
> > latter, unless someone is going to preview the DVI output and make
> > sure it looks okay in print, "make info" can be regarded as a
> > good-enough test for "make dvi" as well.
> 
> On the contrary, many times patches have broken "make dvi" but passed 
> "make info".

I didn't say it was a perfect test, just a good-enough one.

> See the last such breakage in libiberty 
> <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-03/msg02853.html> for an example.  

I didn't change any places that could cause similar problems in this
specific manual.

> "make info" and "make dvi" detect different subsets of invalid Texinfo; 

In general, yes; but in the case of libiberty, not really.

P.S.  If you have such stringent standards for accepting docs patches,
how come what I found needed so many fixes?  I found those problems by
simply looking at the index; any reasonable QA should have discovered
that long ago.