From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29519 invoked by alias); 31 Dec 2003 01:43:25 -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 29512 invoked from network); 31 Dec 2003 01:43:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mclean.mail.mindspring.net) (207.69.200.57) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 31 Dec 2003 01:43:24 -0000 Received: from user-119a90a.biz.mindspring.com ([66.149.36.10] helo=berman.michael-chastain.com) by mclean.mail.mindspring.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 1AbVNv-00079M-00; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 20:42:55 -0500 Received: by berman.michael-chastain.com (Postfix, from userid 502) id A2F784B35A; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 20:43:03 -0500 (EST) To: drow@mvista.com Subject: Re: [cplus] An initial use of the canonicalizer Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Message-Id: <20031231014303.A2F784B35A@berman.michael-chastain.com> Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 01:43:00 -0000 From: mec.gnu@mindspring.com (Michael Elizabeth Chastain) X-SW-Source: 2003-12/txt/msg00525.txt.bz2 > That's why I'm not submitting it for mainline yet. Sorry if I wasn't > clear. The [cplus] tag means it's going on my branch. Oh, I know. I'd like to express my concern sooner rather than later. > For now I'm just kludging around things so that I can see when I > introduce regressions on my branch. That part is fine. > Let's talk about the problem. Which is more important - checking GDB > 6.0 against GCC HEAD, or being able to verify that I've successfully > canonicalized _all_ of GDB's output patterns? I would actually pick the former, checking gdb 6.0 versus gcc HEAD. Here's why. To me, the most important property of a gdb release is that it doesn't introduce regressions versus the previous gdb release. I want *everyone* with gdb 6.0 to be able to upgrade to gdb 6.1 (except for explicitly deprecated things). It's tough for me to find these regressions because the test suite has a lot of noise (300 non-PASS results that we routinely ignore) and bugs often manifest in very subtle ways. So it helps a lot if the same test suite works with gdb 6.0 and gdb HEAD. Then I have to spend less time grubbing in gdb.log files. > I'd like to consider "volatile char *" a bug when we're expecting to > see "char volatile*", not accept both. That would be great with me. Then I would see "gdb 6.0 FAIL, gdb HEAD PASS". But what you did was change: - volatile char ?\\* + .*char.* ?\\* So there used to be a volatile required, but now there is none. That's the part I don't like. Michael C