Re: [RFA] new test script for gnatsweb gdb/15

[Fernando Nasser <fnasser at redhat dot com>]

Michael Snyder wrote:
> 
> Fernando Nasser wrote:
> 
> > Also, I am concerned that we are creating structN.exp test files.  I
> > wonder
> > if we couldn't have all struct tests in the struct.exp file.
> 
> Well... actually, it could just be poor name choice.
> For instance, structs2.exp really has little to do with debugging structs
> in general, and neither does this one.  They're both fixes for specific
> PR's, and named "structN.exp" simply because they have something to do
> with a struct and no more obvious name.
> 
> I'm all in favor of adding a test when fixing a PR, but since a
> one-bug-fix test is kinda different from the one-general-functionality
> tests that we have now (eg. break.exp for breakpoints etc.), maybe we
> need a new naming convention for these tests (maybe PR13536.exp?).
> Maybe they even belong in their own separate directory (eg. gdb.pr)
> so as not to clutter up the existing test heirarchy.
> 

It is an interesting idea.  The main goal for these non-feature tests is
to prevent someone from inadvertently reintroduce the error.

Lets see what people think about this...

-- 
Fernando Nasser
Red Hat Canada Ltd.                     E-Mail:  fnasser@redhat.com
2323 Yonge Street, Suite #300
Toronto, Ontario   M4P 2C9