From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29739 invoked by alias); 30 Jul 2007 15:10:30 -0000 Received: (qmail 29730 invoked by uid 22791); 30 Jul 2007 15:10:30 -0000 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DK_POLICY_SIGNSOME,UNPARSEABLE_RELAY X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from agminet01.oracle.com (HELO agminet01.oracle.com) (141.146.126.228) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Mon, 30 Jul 2007 15:10:24 +0000 Received: from agmgw2.us.oracle.com (agmgw2.us.oracle.com [152.68.180.213]) by agminet01.oracle.com (Switch-3.2.4/Switch-3.1.7) with ESMTP id l6UFA82h030059; Mon, 30 Jul 2007 10:10:08 -0500 Received: from acsmt351.oracle.com (acsmt351.oracle.com [141.146.40.151]) by agmgw2.us.oracle.com (Switch-3.2.0/Switch-3.2.0) with ESMTP id l6UFA78Z031514; Mon, 30 Jul 2007 09:10:08 -0600 Received: from alchar.org by rcsmt252.oracle.com with ESMTP id 3076388271185808191; Mon, 30 Jul 2007 09:09:51 -0600 Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 15:10:00 -0000 From: Kris Van Hees To: Kris Van Hees Cc: Andrew Cagney , pearly.zhao@oracle.com, Frysk Mailing List Subject: Re: [patch] fix bug 4612 Message-ID: <20070730150949.GB22305@oracle.com> References: <1185502689.4051.15.camel@linux-pzhao.site> <46ADE15B.20505@redhat.com> <20070730143927.GA22305@oracle.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070730143927.GA22305@oracle.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-09) X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAQAAAAI= X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAQAAAAI= X-Whitelist: TRUE X-Whitelist: TRUE X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact frysk-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: frysk-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-q3/txt/msg00219.txt.bz2 Woops, my apologies for sending this off before responding to the first point as well (I guess I do need more coffee): I do agree that testing is important (obviously), and hope that we will be able to increase our GUI test coverage as time goes by. However, it clearly has been a problem in the past as well (as witnessed by the very limited amount of GUI tests that currently exist), and that is very understandable given the framework needed to create those tests. Andrew even mentioned at OLS thatthe GUI is essentially not tested. But we do need to get these bugs fixed, and make the GUI usable. Given the complexity writing GUI tests (using dogtail), it seem more prudent to wait for the affected windows to stabilize to write tests. Otherwise it's just going to be a wasted effort. Cheers, Kris On Mon, Jul 30, 2007 at 10:39:27AM -0400, Kris Van Hees wrote: > The code duplication between the Disassembler and Memory windows has been > mentioned during the conf call where I pointed out the various problems > found with those windows (and their implementation). It certainly could do > with a refactoring, although it is too early for that right now. For one, > I do not think it is wise to do it as part of a bug fix, and secondly, the > planned changes to the Memory window will cause it to deviate more from the > Disassembler window than it does now, so premature refactoring is likely to > need a (partial) reversal later on. > > Cheers, > Kris > > On Mon, Jul 30, 2007 at 09:02:19AM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote: > > Pearly, > > > > The below looks fine. Will you be around tuesday morning (your time?). > > I'll send you off list some stuff to do with CVS so that you can check this > > in. > > > > Two things to think about though: > > > > -> testing; > > When making fixes we all endeavor to author the test-case up-front so that > > we can directly demonstrate that the change has the intended effect. > > > > -> it looks like there is much code duplication between the Disassembler > > and Memory windows; > > an opportunity to refactor?