From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12910 invoked by alias); 5 Sep 2012 00:29:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 12819 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Sep 2012 00:29:35 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_50,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_YE,RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from elasmtp-dupuy.atl.sa.earthlink.net (HELO elasmtp-dupuy.atl.sa.earthlink.net) (209.86.89.62) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 05 Sep 2012 00:29:22 +0000 Received: from [68.96.200.16] (helo=macbook2.local) by elasmtp-dupuy.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1T93Uf-0002eR-Ol for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Tue, 04 Sep 2012 20:29:21 -0400 Message-ID: <50469CDA.1030406@earthlink.net> Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2012 00:29:00 -0000 From: Stan Shebs User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120824 Thunderbird/15.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org 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-ELNK-Trace: ae6f8838ff913eba0cc1426638a40ef67e972de0d01da9403952d1168e8c08b5f57a50740a0bb441350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c 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/msg00038.txt.bz2 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