Re: [rfc] plans for linespec.c

[Michael Elizabeth Chastain <mec@shout.net>]

David Carlton writes:
> Fair enough.  It's something I should get around to doing eventually
> for other reasons; maybe your nudging will move it up some.

Right.  I have to allocate my time between 'do stuff with tangible
gdb benefits' and 'do stuff that improves my own infrastructure'.
Sometimes I feel like I'm just infrastructuring my test bed too much.

> Speaking of which, I had the thought that maybe we could do unit tests
> of some of the innards of GDB by writing separate test programs that
> we link with -lgdb.  Something to think about.

That is a provocative idea.  I know Jim B wrote one symbol table test
that jumped through a bunch of hoops with the C source code in order
to populate the symbol table in a way that tickled a lookup bug.

On the gloomy side, the test suite can already spot problems faster than
I can file bug reports, and the bug reports are piling up faster than
people can fix them.

Michael C