From: Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com>
To: Pedro Alves <pedro@codesourcery.com>
Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Marek Polacek <mpolacek@redhat.com>,
Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Fixing gdb.base/completion.exp (PR testsuite/12649)
Date: Mon, 02 May 2011 15:56:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110502155527.GA27403@host1.jankratochvil.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <201105021630.04082.pedro@codesourcery.com>
On Mon, 02 May 2011 17:30:03 +0200, Pedro Alves wrote:
> The "\t" method of completion interacts with readline, the
> "complete command" method doesn't. I think it's useful and
> important to test the "\t" version, especially since it's
> what CLI users are using.
The question is do we test readline/ or gdb/?
For the readline/ part there is already gdb.base/readline.exp and for the "\t"
interaction there is (soon will be) at least:
[patch] testsuite: Test readline-6.2 "ask" regression
http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2011-05/msg00002.html
gdb.base/readline-ask.exp
For the gdb/ part tests I find the "complete" command fully sufficient.
> In this particular case, since it would be desirable to keep at least one
> instance of the original form,
But not required to be in gdb.base/completion.exp .
> And then the original motivation to rewrite
> using a different method disappears or at least diminishes.
generalization over whole gdb/:
It is still very strong as the current codebase state is discouraging possible
contributors keeping the GDB development slow.
I understand one cannot change the whole codebase to a better / more
maintainable form over night but when there are attempts and patches offered
IMO the current codebase should not be actively kept worse.
Thanks,
Jan
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-05-02 15:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-04-27 14:59 Marek Polacek
2011-04-27 15:05 ` Joel Brobecker
2011-04-27 15:13 ` Tom Tromey
2011-04-27 15:23 ` Pedro Alves
2011-04-27 17:41 ` Marek Polacek
2011-04-28 14:19 ` Pedro Alves
2011-04-28 15:14 ` Pedro Alves
2011-04-29 14:10 ` Marek Polacek
2011-05-02 14:58 ` Pedro Alves
2011-05-01 9:17 ` Jan Kratochvil
2011-05-02 14:00 ` Marek Polacek
2011-05-02 14:19 ` Pedro Alves
2011-05-02 14:53 ` Jan Kratochvil
2011-05-02 15:30 ` Pedro Alves
2011-05-02 15:44 ` Joel Brobecker
2011-05-02 15:50 ` Pedro Alves
2011-05-02 15:56 ` Jan Kratochvil [this message]
2011-05-02 16:10 ` Pedro Alves
2011-05-02 16:35 ` Jan Kratochvil
2011-05-02 16:54 ` Pedro Alves
2011-05-02 17:04 ` Jan Kratochvil
2011-05-02 17:21 ` Jan Kratochvil
2011-05-02 17:23 ` Pedro Alves
2011-05-02 17:29 ` Jan Kratochvil
2011-05-02 17:53 ` Pedro Alves
2011-05-02 17:56 ` Pedro Alves
2011-05-05 15:11 ` Tom Tromey
2011-04-28 11:56 ` Marek Polacek
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20110502155527.GA27403@host1.jankratochvil.net \
--to=jan.kratochvil@redhat.com \
--cc=brobecker@adacore.com \
--cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
--cc=mpolacek@redhat.com \
--cc=pedro@codesourcery.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox