From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25221 invoked by alias); 5 Jun 2004 13:48:14 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 25212 invoked from network); 5 Jun 2004 13:48:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lakermmtao06.cox.net) (68.230.240.33) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 5 Jun 2004 13:48:13 -0000 Received: from white ([68.9.64.121]) by lakermmtao06.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.03.02 201-2131-111-104-20040324) with ESMTP id <20040605134811.JOWZ14402.lakermmtao06.cox.net@white>; Sat, 5 Jun 2004 09:48:11 -0400 Received: from bob by white with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1BWbWu-0001rH-00; Sat, 05 Jun 2004 09:48:12 -0400 Date: Sat, 05 Jun 2004 13:48:00 -0000 From: Bob Rossi To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: Peter Barada , me@cgf.cx, gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [maint] [maint] Michael Chastain for testsuite Message-ID: <20040605134812.GD5689@white> Mail-Followup-To: Eli Zaretskii , Peter Barada , me@cgf.cx, gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <20040604233726.4FA074B104@berman.michael-chastain.com> <20040604235736.GA3283@coe.casa.cgf.cx> <20040605001706.EB1B898C8A@baradas.org> <8011-Sat05Jun2004130223+0300-eliz@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="LQksG6bCIzRHxTLp" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <8011-Sat05Jun2004130223+0300-eliz@gnu.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i X-SW-Source: 2004-06/txt/msg00037.txt.bz2 --LQksG6bCIzRHxTLp Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-length: 1143 On Sat, Jun 05, 2004 at 01:02:24PM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > From: Peter Barada > > Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2004 20:17:06 -0400 (EDT) > >=20 > > I'd like to see a testcase being *required* to be added that shows a > > current failure *before* a patch for its fix is accepted. >=20 > That's a noble goal, but what do we do in cases where it's > impractical? For example, a particular bug could only be raising its > ugly head in a very large program. Well, it's a tough decision. Obviously it's impractical to run many large programs to prove the behavior of GDB is correct. However, once the bug fix is committed with out a testcase, you can consider it broken already. What can break, will. BTW, over the years, I have had a lot of experience with finding bugs in large programs. It can take hours to find the bug, however, once it is found, I typically find that it can be reproduced with a very small segment of the original code. I doubt you would need to run a test on a large program in almost all cases, you will probably have to create a subset of the original code, and use that as the testcase. Bob Rossi --LQksG6bCIzRHxTLp Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline Content-length: 232 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQFAwc8cv+yQBIKQQJcRAiRiAJ9BNb19wLnMRrx2VgNVB6SKbIwYOQCggRKY Yf8hiyvgSOOiUgNwYoJBK6c= =XCMc -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --LQksG6bCIzRHxTLp--