From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32530 invoked by alias); 26 Apr 2010 22:11:14 -0000 Received: (qmail 32522 invoked by uid 22791); 26 Apr 2010 22:11:14 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 26 Apr 2010 22:11:10 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CA7A2BAB5D; Mon, 26 Apr 2010 18:11:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id MHb9T1gCEMKm; Mon, 26 Apr 2010 18:11:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09A9B2BAB5C; Mon, 26 Apr 2010 18:11:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 28773F5896; Mon, 26 Apr 2010 15:11:06 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 22:11:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Stan Shebs Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: why do we set prms_id/bug_id in GDB testcases? Message-ID: <20100426221106.GA2951@adacore.com> References: <20100426170109.GE2732@adacore.com> <4BD5E4D2.6020702@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4BD5E4D2.6020702@codesourcery.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2010-04/txt/msg00899.txt.bz2 > In fact I would go further, and say that *anything* in the GDB > testsuite without a known use should be deleted. The unfinished > bits routinely soak up our time puzzling over what they are supposed > to be for. If someone has a use for some bit, then it's up to them > to document in the testsuite somewhere. Sounds like a plan to me, I definitely agree on the amount of time they tend to soak up. I'll let things sit for a week or two, and start looking at whacking them all. Maybe I can add a command such as PR gdb/#### in the few cases where we do provide a number. It's going to be a little painful, because of course the numbers are probably from the old database, so I'd have to check each of them. But there aren't too many, fortunately. -- Joel