From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Michael Elizabeth Chastain <chastain@cygnus.com>
To: tromey@redhat.com
Cc: ac131313@cygnus.com, dan@cgsoftware.com, gdb@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: So what is wrong with v3 C++
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 00:56:00 -0000
Message-id: <200106290657.XAA01310@bosch.cygnus.com>
X-SW-Source: 2001-06/msg00233.html

Hi Tom,

> Unfortunately nobody wrote new tests as they wrote new code.  I think
> I mentioned the test suite to whoever wrote the new demangler, but was
> ignored.  Anyway I do think that the other goal still applies.
> Putting new tests in gdb is, imnsho, not as helpful as putting them
> into the demangler's own test suite.

Pro:
  Modularity suggests that the test suite goes with the software.
  Parsimony suggests that the test appear in just one place.

Con:
  Defensiveness suggests that gdb tests this library facility that it needs.
  Ecology suggests that it get tested where people are actually testing.

> If there is an administrative overhead that makes this hard, then that
> is the barrier that should be lowered.

I think of it as "ecology" rather than "administration".
Gdb people are used to running only the gdb test suite.

I just tried this in one of my build trees:

  % cd native/build/libiberty
  % make check
  /bin/sh /horton/chastain/fsf/2001-06-23/source/libiberty/testsuite/regress-demangle /horton/chastain/fsf/2001-06-23/source/libiberty/testsuite/demangle-expected
  All 645 tests passed

I wrote another trivial script.  I'll add this to my Sunday reports.

Michael