Re: [rfc] clean up linespec.c

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>]

On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 12:30:26PM -0500, Elena Zannoni wrote:
>  > It turns out that decode_line_1 isn't quite as crazy a function as I'd
>  > feared.  There's a reasonable flow of control underneath (well, at
>  > least there is once you get rid of the unnecessary goto's), though
>  > admittedly the C++ part of the function is still pretty complicated,
>  > and the function will always consist of a bunch of special cases.
>  > 
> 
> Having c++ separated in functions, is a first step in moving C++
> support to its own files.....:-)

:)

>  > I hope I didn't break anything, though my only real evidence for that
>  > is that I didn't get any new regressions on the testsuite.  (I have no
>  > idea how comprehensive the testsuite's coverage of linespec is.)
> 
> ah, gcov data would be useful here... :-)

Gcov data is good and all, but it's a required-but-not-sufficient for
coverage testing.  I've been doing some coverage tests on
c-typeprint.c, and I would never have found the char *constvarname bug
that was fixed recently.

It's still impressively useful though :)


-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer