From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Michael Elizabeth Chastain To: fnasser@cygnus.com Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] testsuite/gdb.c++/cplusfuncs.{exp,cc}: work with either g++ demangler Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 09:21:00 -0000 Message-id: <200102141721.JAA29024@bosch.cygnus.com> X-SW-Source: 2001-02/msg00217.html Hi Fernando, > Also, we must consider that what the tests are really checking for is > not the presence of one some spaces, but that the right methods were > found etc. (well, int and void disappearing does hurt a bit, but still, > that was not what the test was written for). Right. As I understand it, this is the autoconf way. Version checks are bad, specific feature tests are good. Last night I checked out the discussion on gcc-patches about Daniel Berlin's demangler patch. There's a style discussion going on about what the demangler should emit with people referring to their style document, gcc/libstdc++-v3/docs/html/17_intro/C++STYLE. I will not willingly accept a project dependency on a controversial decision that belongs to another project. I'm going to continue submitting patches that make gdb testsuite work with all known styles. If the demangler gets more compatible, that's great. > 1) If we had the "known failures" we could have marked those 8 tests as > such and associated with the Gnats id. We have those bug_id and prms_id fields that are associated with the whole test. If someone wants to do some infrastructure work to link to Gnats, I will be happy to use them. I like filing Gnats bugs. > 3) Your patch should have been submitted as 3 separate patches. Understood. > 4) Before checking in, please add some of the comments to the test file > (see below). No need to repost. You got it. > 5) This is a nitty-picky thing :-) Please add a period after "New file" in > your first ChangeLog entry (and capitalize the following letter) before checking it in. Ditto. > And again, thanks for the patch. Two down (almost). Thirteen to go. Michael