From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tom Tromey To: Michael Elizabeth Chastain Cc: dan@cgsoftware.com, ac131313@cygnus.com, gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: So what is wrong with v3 C++ Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 00:29:00 -0000 Message-id: <87ae2r20c4.fsf@creche.redhat.com> References: <200106290342.UAA29925@stanley.cygnus.com> X-SW-Source: 2001-06/msg00232.html >>>>> ">" == Michael Elizabeth Chastain writes: >> Gdb is the #1 client of the demangler so it's in our interest to >> check for demangling bugs in our test suite. That way we can find >> them and push them upstream more easily. The history of the libiberty test suite is that, in the past, people would modify the demangler without running the gdb test suite. Then one day someone would do that and they would notice a bug. So, I used some Emacs code to convert the gdb demangler test suite to something I could put into libiberty. My desire was that people working on the demangler would be encouraged to write new tests there, and that having the demangler pass its regressions would be a requirement for any demangler change. 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. I don't think pushing these things upstream is easier if you put the test into the gdb framework. It is easy to put a test into the libiberty harness. If there is an administrative overhead that makes this hard, then that is the barrier that should be lowered. Tom