From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8614 invoked by alias); 31 Dec 2003 02:09:03 -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 8607 invoked from network); 31 Dec 2003 02:09:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 31 Dec 2003 02:09:02 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.30 #1 (Debian)) id 1AbVmw-0005mt-Jw; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 21:08:46 -0500 Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 02:09:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Michael Elizabeth Chastain Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [cplus] An initial use of the canonicalizer Message-ID: <20031231020846.GA22230@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Michael Elizabeth Chastain , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <20031231014303.A2F784B35A@berman.michael-chastain.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20031231014303.A2F784B35A@berman.michael-chastain.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-12/txt/msg00526.txt.bz2 On Tue, Dec 30, 2003 at 08:43:03PM -0500, Michael Chastain wrote: > > 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. That's the part that will be going away when I have more time. I'm going to stabilize the output first, and tighten up the testcases one test at a time second; too many changes, otherwise. I was just doing whatever made for the least typing. So you're OK if I make these tests fail when run against GDB 6.0? I'm a little confused by your response. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer