From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18925 invoked by alias); 19 Jan 2004 18:16:29 -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 18868 invoked from network); 19 Jan 2004 18:16:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (216.129.200.20) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 19 Jan 2004 18:16:27 -0000 Received: from gnu.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A9892B8F; Mon, 19 Jan 2004 13:16:24 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <400C1EF8.1020108@gnu.org> Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 18:16:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030820 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Michael Elizabeth Chastain Cc: carlton@kealia.com, ezannoni@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [rfa] pc bounds checking and namespaces References: <20040119060642.DFA504B359@berman.michael-chastain.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-01/txt/msg00508.txt.bz2 > Elena Zannoni writes: > >> Again, a sanity check with 2.95 and -gdwarf-2 would be good. > > > I'm about to add carlton_dictionary-branch and drow-cplus-branch > to my test bed. That ought to help. > > Instead of finding these problems at the point of merging > the branches onto HEAD, how about if we fix the branches so that > they have zero regressions versus gdb 6.0, and then merge the > branches? There's a trade off. Being able to push a button and get back test results (or see them posted) for relevant cases will be very helpful, I think we need to be careful to avoid introducing absolute criteria such as zero regressions. After all the branch is there largely to explore a specific idea and not for major long term development. enjoy, Andrew