From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30298 invoked by alias); 23 Sep 2004 15:18:04 -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 30288 invoked from network); 23 Sep 2004 15:18:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO takamaka.act-europe.fr) (142.179.108.108) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 23 Sep 2004 15:18:03 -0000 Received: by takamaka.act-europe.fr (Postfix, from userid 507) id 34C4F47D95; Thu, 23 Sep 2004 08:18:02 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 15:18:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Michael Chastain Cc: me@cgf.cx, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFC] Suggested ways to remove the need for xm-go32.h Message-ID: <20040923151802.GC968@gnat.com> References: <01c49d82$Blat.v2.2.2$23875ec0@zahav.net.il> <20040923050534.GA11936@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> <41526D73.nailWK21NVX4@mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <41526D73.nailWK21NVX4@mindspring.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-SW-Source: 2004-09/txt/msg00369.txt.bz2 > The gdb-testers@ group records "somebody tested something and reported > results in some way". That's where the "more work for me" comes in: > devising some standard meta-information for a test run (like a little > XML file, that's what I use in my test bed), and then augmenting the > test suite to generate gdb-test-run.xml on every run, and then having > people mail that in, and then begging more people to report their > results, and then writing "Terf II" to keep track of it all. We actually put this sort of information in our own testsuite reports. I think the only way for you to collect this information is by having it automatically collected and inserted at the begining of gdb.sum. > Personally I like wrappers for ease of porting. It doesn't bug me to > see gdb_fopen + fopen on the call stack. And we have plenty of wrappers already (in libiberty for instance). > I don't think that "rb" versus "r" can be autoconf'ed. The gdb > configure script would need to execute a host program to figure out > whether "rb" is supported or not, and that won't work if build != host. > Or maybe I'm wrong about that and there's some way to do it. I must say I am not convinced that it is such a good idea to support that setup. I wouldn't bother about this until somebody has a real interest in that support, and then can step up and maintain it. In the meantime, we're just letting the best be the enemy of good, and as a consequence have to find elaborate solutions to problems made more complex by this requirement. Intellectually rewarding, but slows down development. -- Joel