From: Stan Shebs <stanshebs@earthlink.net>
To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] Merge mi-cli.exp and mi2-cli.exp
Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2012 00:29:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <50469CDA.1030406@earthlink.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <k21s1o$aps$1@ger.gmane.org>
On 9/3/12 2:08 AM, Vladimir Prus wrote:
> On 31.08.2012 17:29, Yao Qi wrote:
>> Unless I miss something, the intention of copying tests here is to test
>> both '-i=mi' and '-i=mi2' respectively. However, this duplicates the
>> code,
>> and increase the effort to maintain, IMO.
>
> 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.
>
> I am not quite sure how relevant this plan is these days.
That plan has pretty much fallen by the wayside. We should probably
declare the current MI behavior as the "done" form of MI3, and disallow
any incompatible changes. If someone wants to get ambitious, they are
free to specify and implement MI4. :-)
On the original question, I tend to agree with leaving the test files
separate. Shared code risks being unable to detect when the MI code is
broken for one of the MI versions, but not the other; this is a rare
case where we want the tests to be a little more brittle than usual.
Stan
stan@codesourcery.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-09-05 0:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-08-31 13:29 Yao Qi
2012-09-03 9:08 ` Vladimir Prus
2012-09-03 15:55 ` Yao Qi
2012-09-05 0:29 ` Stan Shebs [this message]
2012-09-10 20:09 ` Tom Tromey
2012-09-11 15:15 ` Pedro Alves
2012-09-11 21:53 ` Stan Shebs
2012-09-12 15:28 ` Pedro Alves
2012-09-12 13:59 ` Yao Qi
2012-09-19 11:22 ` Yao Qi
2012-09-19 13:47 ` Pedro Alves
2012-09-21 8:40 ` Yao Qi
2012-09-28 0:04 ` [PATCH 0/11] Cleanup MI test cases Yao Qi
2012-09-28 0:04 ` [PATCH 02/11] mi-var-block.exp Yao Qi
2012-09-28 0:04 ` [PATCH 05/11] mi-pthreads.exp Yao Qi
2012-09-28 0:05 ` [PATCH 07/11] mi-var-cmd.exp Yao Qi
2012-09-28 0:05 ` [PATCH 10/11] mi-stack.exp Yao Qi
2012-09-28 0:05 ` [PATCH 03/11] mi-file.exp Yao Qi
2012-09-28 0:05 ` [PATCH 04/11] mi-basics.exp Yao Qi
2012-09-28 0:05 ` [PATCH 08/11] mi-var-display.exp Yao Qi
2012-09-28 0:05 ` [PATCH 09/11] mi-console.exp Yao Qi
2012-09-28 0:05 ` [PATCH 11/11] mi-syn-frame.exp Yao Qi
2012-09-28 0:05 ` [PATCH 06/11] mi-break.exp Yao Qi
2012-09-28 0:05 ` [PATCH 01/11] Remove mi-FOO.exp which are identical to mi2-FOO.exp Yao Qi
2012-09-28 19:36 ` [PATCH 0/11] Cleanup MI test cases Pedro Alves
2012-10-12 9:47 ` Yao Qi
2012-10-12 10:05 ` Pedro Alves
2012-10-14 12:25 ` [committed] : " Yao Qi
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=50469CDA.1030406@earthlink.net \
--to=stanshebs@earthlink.net \
--cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
/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