From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16768 invoked by alias); 3 Sep 2012 15:55:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 16760 invoked by uid 22791); 3 Sep 2012 15:55:47 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_WL X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from relay1.mentorg.com (HELO relay1.mentorg.com) (192.94.38.131) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 03 Sep 2012 15:55:16 +0000 Received: from svr-orw-fem-01.mgc.mentorg.com ([147.34.98.93]) by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtp id 1T8YzZ-0005FW-KV from Yao_Qi@mentor.com ; Mon, 03 Sep 2012 08:55:13 -0700 Received: from SVR-ORW-FEM-04.mgc.mentorg.com ([147.34.97.41]) by svr-orw-fem-01.mgc.mentorg.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 3 Sep 2012 08:55:13 -0700 Received: from qiyao.dyndns.org (147.34.91.1) by svr-orw-fem-04.mgc.mentorg.com (147.34.97.41) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.289.1; Mon, 3 Sep 2012 08:55:12 -0700 Message-ID: <5044D2B6.30600@codesourcery.com> Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2012 15:55:00 -0000 From: Yao Qi User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120717 Thunderbird/14.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Vladimir Prus CC: Subject: Re: [RFC] Merge mi-cli.exp and mi2-cli.exp References: <1346419770-5718-1-git-send-email-yao@codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: 2012-09/txt/msg00022.txt.bz2 On 09/03/2012 05:08 PM, Vladimir Prus wrote: > Yep, that was the intent -- with the extra twist that tests for MI and > MI2 are not necessary > identical. In other words, MI2 tests are tests for MI2 when MI2 was > declared "done", and the > idea was that the output with "-i=mi2" would remain the same for years. > -i=mi is our current > version of MI, which may evolve, and when MI3 is declared "done", the > current tests will > be copied to mi3-* tests to keep backward compatibility in future. > mi and mi2 test cases are not necessarily identical, but most of them should be the same, and the difference should be a small part in test. I can't see the benefit of simply copying mi tests to mi2 tests. We can claim that a certain version of MI is done, but I am not sure we can claim the testing to a certain version or some versions of MI is done, unless we have a confident coverage result. What should we do if we want to add more tests to all existing MI? The tests are not specific to a certain version of MI. Do we have to copy the new tests to mi-foo.exp and mi2-foo.exp? I am writing some tests on breakpoint-modified notification on all types of 'breakpoint', such as watchpoint, catchpoint, dprintf, tracepoint, etc. I write them in mi-cli.exp, but I am wondering whether I should add them to mi2-cli.exp as well. -- Yao