From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com>
To: Michael Elizabeth Chastain <chastain@cygnus.com>
Cc: dberlin@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, Elena Zannoni <ezannoni@cygnus.com>, Jim Blandy <jimb@cygnus.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Start abstraction of C++ abi's
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 14:32:00 -0000
Message-id: <3A919E81.99DE9856@cygnus.com>
References: <200102192211.OAA18590@bosch.cygnus.com>
X-SW-Source: 2001-02/msg00382.html

Michael Elizabeth Chastain wrote:

> andrew> This, unfortunatly, makes it sound like more than a cosmetic
> andrew> change :-(
> 
> daniel> How so?
> daniel> It wasn't able to detect destructors before, because it was looking
> daniel> for the v2 abi stuff.
> 
> I think that Andrew is saying: something that fixes bug is "*more*
> than cosmetic", which means that it needs more review than a purely
> cosmetic change would.

Yes.

> I would like to see before-and-after test suite runs on two different
> platforms with both v2 and v3 g++, and maybe hpux aCC.  That's a lot of
> testing but this kind of change is prone to regression errors.

I'm pretty sure Dan is already doing before/after testing on v2 and v3. 
As for HP/UX, does it even build?  Fixing HPUX getting carried away a
little.

Anyway, it is important to resist the temptation to mix bug fixes in
with mechanical changes  It means that if there is a problem then
someone (else) can determine if it was the mechanical change or a
later/earlier bug fix.

	enjoy,
		Andrew