From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11921 invoked by alias); 3 Apr 2009 20:36:41 -0000 Received: (qmail 11758 invoked by uid 22791); 3 Apr 2009 20:36:41 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from e24smtp02.br.ibm.com (HELO e24smtp02.br.ibm.com) (32.104.18.86) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 03 Apr 2009 20:36:35 +0000 Received: from mailhub1.br.ibm.com (mailhub1.br.ibm.com [9.18.232.109]) by e24smtp02.br.ibm.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n33Kr45X020200 for ; Fri, 3 Apr 2009 17:53:04 -0300 Received: from d24av02.br.ibm.com (d24av02.br.ibm.com [9.18.232.47]) by mailhub1.br.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v9.2) with ESMTP id n33KaoIG1589408 for ; Fri, 3 Apr 2009 17:36:50 -0300 Received: from d24av02.br.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d24av02.br.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id n33KaVN8016037 for ; Fri, 3 Apr 2009 17:36:32 -0300 Received: from [9.8.4.240] ([9.8.4.240]) by d24av02.br.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n33KaVLx016034; Fri, 3 Apr 2009 17:36:31 -0300 Subject: Re: Python pretty-printing [2/6] From: Thiago Jung Bauermann To: Tom Tromey Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-Reply-To: References: <1238711355.3236.51.camel@localhost.localdomain> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2009 20:36:00 -0000 Message-Id: <1238790991.3236.75.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2009-04/txt/msg00087.txt.bz2 El jue, 02-04-2009 a las 18:23 -0600, Tom Tromey escribió: > >>>>> "Thiago" == Thiago Jung Bauermann writes: > Thiago> Also, just to check: the lack of testcases is because you believe this > Thiago> code is tested enough with python-prettyprint.exp in a later patch? > > You know, I am not sure. This class doesn't provide much behavior > yet. And, the most important bits are tested by the pretty-printer. > I'm inclined not to bother, but if you (or anybody) thinks it is > important, I suppose I can whip something up. Well, my policy with python testcases has been to at least smoke-test all of the API supported by GDB. That way, if we make an API-breaking change, at least one testcase will fail. I won't insist that it is important to do this, since I believe it's not hard to spot API changes by looking at a patch. -- []'s Thiago Jung Bauermann IBM Linux Technology Center