From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-return-18403-listarch-gdb=sources.redhat.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 13993 invoked by alias); 23 Jun 2004 18:44:51 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 13979 invoked from network); 23 Jun 2004 18:44:51 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31)
  by sourceware.org with SMTP; 23 Jun 2004 18:44:51 -0000
Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254])
	by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i5NIioe3018010
	for <gdb@sources.redhat.com>; Wed, 23 Jun 2004 14:44:51 -0400
Received: from zenia.home.redhat.com (porkchop.devel.redhat.com [172.16.58.2])
	by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i5NIin013900;
	Wed, 23 Jun 2004 14:44:49 -0400
To: Andrew Cagney <cagney@gnu.org>
Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com, mec.gnu@mindspring.com
Subject: Re: Technical criteria for retaining symbol readers
References: <40D70123.9060308@gnu.org>
From: Jim Blandy <jimb@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 18:44:00 -0000
In-Reply-To: <40D70123.9060308@gnu.org>
Message-ID: <vt2fz8mm7x3.fsf@zenia.home>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-SW-Source: 2004-06/txt/msg00241.txt.bz2


Andrew Cagney <cagney@gnu.org> writes:
> I'd like to see us establish clear technical criteria against which
> symtab readers are measured.  Those that don't meet the criteria, either
> being fixed or removed.
> 
> As an example, should it be a requirement that all symbol-readers use
> the build-symtab framework?

That would be good.

I'd also like to have some kind of requirement for testability.  For
example, I have no way (that I know of) to evaluate changes to
nlmread.c, but that shouldn't mean that I mustn't change anything it
depends on.  Perhaps we should require that, in order to be retained,
symbol readers have a contact person who can give GDB developers
access to a machine that actually uses that format.  (A complete sim
toolchain being available would be an easy way to satisfy this
requirement.)