From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14956 invoked by alias); 8 Dec 2003 18:02:44 -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 14949 invoked from network); 8 Dec 2003 18:02:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO barry.mail.mindspring.net) (207.69.200.25) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 8 Dec 2003 18:02:43 -0000 Received: from user-119a90a.biz.mindspring.com ([66.149.36.10] helo=berman.michael-chastain.com) by barry.mail.mindspring.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 1ATPhy-0003Ja-00; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 13:02:10 -0500 Received: by berman.michael-chastain.com (Postfix, from userid 502) id A014A4B412; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 13:02:13 -0500 (EST) To: fnf@ninemoons.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] - Accept optional printed address at function breakpoints Cc: drow@mvista.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Message-Id: <20031208180213.A014A4B412@berman.michael-chastain.com> Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2003 18:02:00 -0000 From: mec.gnu@mindspring.com (Michael Elizabeth Chastain) X-SW-Source: 2003-12/txt/msg00260.txt.bz2 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