Re: Pinging Michael C

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>]

On Mon, Sep 16, 2002 at 10:55:47AM -0400, Fernando Nasser wrote:
> I am assuming you all have looked at the C++ side of these tests...

I hadn't given them enough attention, but now I have...

> Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> >Michael,
> >
> >Are you still around and at this address?  I haven't heard from you in some
> >time, and David Carlton's C++ testsuite patches from August are still
> >awaiting review:
> >  http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2002-08/msg00695.html
> 
> I wonder if next will relly be more reliable.  Anyway, we can try -- the 
> test is not about breakpoints.

I hadn't actually looked at this one.  David, there's an easier way -
if you look in lib/gdb.exp, gdb_get_line_number.  Is that closer to
what you want?  It should be more reliable than 'next'ing.

> The following ChangeLog entries need some more info though:
> 
> 	* gdb.c++/m-static.cc: Add test 4.
> 	* gdb.c++/m-static.h: New file.
> 	* gdb.c++/m-static1.cc: New file.

(Fernando, this is exactly what the GNU coding standards say a
ChangeLog entry should look like - just what changed, not why it was
changed, which belongs only in the code.  What else are you looking
for?)

> 
> 
> >  http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2002-08/msg00472.html
> 
> I don't think we want to add tests to make gdb dump core to the 
> testsuite right away.  It should go in as soon as someone fixes the 
> problem to prevent a regression.  Alternatively we can add it in and 
> explicitly skip the test with a explicit call to the kfail proc...

Fortunately, David has since fixed the bug.  I think this patch is
ready to go in, once we agree on ChangeLog formatting.

> >  http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2002-08/msg00469.html
> >
> 
> I was talking to Andrew about collecting these regression tests into a 
> single file (someone would eventually move them into one of the other 
> files if the test can be associated with some feature).
> 
> Andrew, what was the name of the file? I forgot...

I have an even better idea (I think :).  I'll post an RFC for it in a
second.

> Again, the test s OK but the ChangeLog entries need more info.
> P.S.: If this is not fixed yet please use setup_kfail and refer to 
> appropriate Gnats bug report.

Test looks fine to me from the C++ side, with setup_kfail if necessary.

> >As is one of Jim Blandy's:
> >  http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2002-08/msg00670.html
> 
> Nice!  Just needs a correct ChangeLog entry in the proper format and at 
> least mentioning what the new tests are for (although one could guess 
> from the file names, but we don't usually rely on that).

Also looks good.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer