From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13355 invoked by alias); 2 May 2011 16:10:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 13339 invoked by uid 22791); 2 May 2011 16:10:08 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (38.113.113.100) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 02 May 2011 16:09:52 +0000 Received: (qmail 26926 invoked from network); 2 May 2011 16:09:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO scottsdale.localnet) (pedro@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 2 May 2011 16:09:51 -0000 From: Pedro Alves To: Jan Kratochvil Subject: Re: [RFC] Fixing gdb.base/completion.exp (PR testsuite/12649) Date: Mon, 02 May 2011 16:10:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.5 (Linux/2.6.35-28-generic; KDE/4.6.2; x86_64; ; ) Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Marek Polacek , Joel Brobecker References: <4DB82F26.30801@redhat.com> <201105021630.04082.pedro@codesourcery.com> <20110502155527.GA27403@host1.jankratochvil.net> In-Reply-To: <20110502155527.GA27403@host1.jankratochvil.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201105021709.51088.pedro@codesourcery.com> X-IsSubscribed: yes 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: 2011-05/txt/msg00022.txt.bz2 On Monday 02 May 2011 16:55:27, Jan Kratochvil wrote: > > 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 . This is about completion, using one form or the other. We could move the "\t" form to readline-completion.exp, but I think a systematic approach to testing all the completion methods is better, and helps maintenance in the long run. > generalization over whole gdb/: > > It is still very strong as the current codebase state is discouraging possible > contributors keeping the GDB development slow. I'm not sure how to read that... > 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. I took the time investigate the original issues with the code, write a patch to fix them, explain the problems and the proposed fixes, in order to not keep the knowledge to myself, and I've posted the beginnings of a patch that cleans up the test further. I don't think it's fair to suggest I'm trying to keep anything worse. -- Pedro Alves