From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6978 invoked by alias); 21 Oct 2002 19:08:49 -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 6703 invoked from network); 21 Oct 2002 19:08:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO touchme.toronto.redhat.com) (216.138.202.10) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 21 Oct 2002 19:08:44 -0000 Received: from localhost.redhat.com (to-dhcp51.toronto.redhat.com [172.16.14.151]) by touchme.toronto.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF9558000EE; Mon, 21 Oct 2002 15:08:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A32B03D01; Mon, 21 Oct 2002 11:17:36 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3DB41A90.4070403@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 12:08:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020824 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Carlton Cc: Elena Zannoni , Jim Blandy , gdb Subject: Re: current namespace game plan References: <15789.43864.432576.737958@localhost.redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-10/txt/msg00151.txt.bz2 > On Wed, 16 Oct 2002 14:09:28 -0400, Elena Zannoni said: > > >> Could you start writing some test files with these examples? Even if >> the tests are not passing, I find it is really useful while working on >> something, to monitor my own progress. You could put these tests on >> the branch(es), so that anybody can look at them. Or we could even add >> them to mainline with KFAILs. > > > Good idea. I've added some tests to namespace.exp in > carlton_dictionary-branch that demonstrate the cases that that branch > is currently handling more-or-less correctly. (Which, right now, is > anonymous namespaces and functions defined in a namespace, though > it doesn't handle either case _quite_ correctly yet.) > > But I like your idea of adding a whole bunch of tests, even including > ones that I know won't be handled correctly, and marking them to fail. > I'll do that next. This is also why KFAIL was added. It was the political compromise that would allow us to add functional tests to a regression testsuite (you can't add tests that knowingly fail to a regression testsuite since a regression testsuite can only test functionality that works). Andrew