From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18403 invoked by alias); 16 Aug 2002 21:30:54 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 18396 invoked from network); 16 Aug 2002 21:30:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (65.125.64.184) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 16 Aug 2002 21:30:53 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org ([66.93.61.169] ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 17fogJ-000556-00; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 16:30:55 -0500 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17fogk-0003B9-00; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 17:31:22 -0400 Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 14:30:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: David Carlton Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [rfa/testsuite] more tests in gdb.c++/m-static Message-ID: <20020816213122.GA12044@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: David Carlton , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2002-08/txt/msg00456.txt.bz2 On Fri, Aug 16, 2002 at 02:19:35PM -0700, David Carlton wrote: > I've added some tests to gdb.c++/m-static that correspond to the patch > in ; > patches below. > > A few tangential questions: > > * I hope I got the stuff in brackets in the subject correct; is rfa > "request for approval"? Yup. You might want to specify c++testsuite and/or CC the various testsuite maintainers. > * What's the convention for submitting new files (as opposed to > patches to existing files)? (I'd look through the mail archive for > examples, but I don't seem to be able to access it right now.) I'm > attaching them below as files and hoping that the mailer will make > it clear what they're named and so forth; please let me know if I > should do anything else. I usually use diff -N to do this. > * CONTRIBUTE suggests using "cvs diff -cp", but everybody submits > unidiff patches. Should I change it to say "cvs diff -up"? Either works. I like unidiff, personally. > * Does "make clean" actually clean up the testsuite directory > properly? Looking at the Makefile in gdb.c++, it seems like it > cleans up whatever's in the EXECUTABLES variable, which certainly > doesn't include all the executables in that directory. Is there > something else magic going on, or should I audit the Makefile.in's > in the various directories to see if they clean up everything? > (Yes, I know, I should really type "make clean" and see what it > does, but I don't feel like rebuilding gdb if somebody can answer > the question quickly.) No, the testsuite directory doesn't get cleaned properly. I recommend using a separate object directory anyway; it keeps things neater. Oh, and you might want to use namespace names that aren't in the implementation space (__gnu is in the implementation space, because it starts with two underscores. _[A-Z] is also reserved.) -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer