From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31160 invoked by alias); 31 Dec 2003 03:36:40 -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 31131 invoked from network); 31 Dec 2003 03:36:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 31 Dec 2003 03:36:39 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.30 #1 (Debian)) id 1AbX9r-0006Mk-V8; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 22:36:31 -0500 Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 03:36:00 -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: <20031231033631.GA24452@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Michael Elizabeth Chastain , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <20031231022520.77EC84B35A@berman.michael-chastain.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20031231022520.77EC84B35A@berman.michael-chastain.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-12/txt/msg00528.txt.bz2 On Tue, Dec 30, 2003 at 09:25:20PM -0500, Michael Chastain wrote: > mec> So there used to be a volatile required, but now there is none. > mec> That's the part I don't like. > > drow> That's the part that will be going away when I have more time. I'm > drow> going to stabilize the output first, and tighten up the testcases one > drow> test at a time second; too many changes, otherwise. > > Yes, I'm sorry -- I shouldn't jump on your back about this. > (I'm having a bad day with gdb.cp already). > > drow> So you're OK if I make these tests fail when run against GDB 6.0? > drow> I'm a little confused by your response. > > I'm okay with the idea of accepting only "char volatile*", > or whichever flavor you land on. When I run that test script against > gdb 6.0, it will FAIL with gdb 6.0 and PASS with gdb HEAD. > I can handle that. > > To look at it another way, I'm okay whenever the test suite gets > more stringent and stuff that used to PASS (but shouldn't) > now FAILs. And other people won't notice a problem as long as > gdb is fixed before the test suite is improved. > > A question about the "" versus "". > Is "" a bug? I don't consider it a bug, so it would bother me > if that started FAILing. That's why I want the pattern to be > "". That depends on your point of view. It is not a bug in the sense that it makes sense, means the right thing, will be recognized as user input, etc. But "" is (maybe) uglier, and the point of this whole rewrite is to make our output _consistent_. So if we're printing somewhere and somewhere else, that will be a bug. So I'd write all the tests to match only. That's the theory I'm going by at the moment at least. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer