Re: [PATCH] - Accept optional printed address at function breakpoints

[mec.gnu@mindspring.com (Michael Elizabeth Chastain)]

Fred Fish writes:
> On one hand, I can see the value of having just a single test that
> focuses on confirming/enforcing this behavior and be more lenient
> about the patterns we accept in general.  On the other hand, I can see
> that having dozens of new failures pop up due to a change in gcc debug
> output could be helpful in getting enough attention to get the problem
> fixed.

I favor the first hand.  I would like to have one specific test script
which is devoted to this issue with a bunch of cases in it.  Then let it
slide in every other test script.

To be sure, we might not get complete coverage of this bug without all
the windfall testing from other places.  But it's just not a very
important bug to users, so I think it's not worth vitiating other parts
of the test suite just to get more coverage of this bug.

As far as the "dozens of new failures" go, it is easier for me if a bug
causes one FAIL rather than a dozen FAILs.  I do track every individual
result change.

Michael C