This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: typedef-named class member functions can be public
On Jul 5, 2002, Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com> wrote:
> I don't think we need this level of Chinese wall-ness.
Sorry, I got advice from Red Hat lawyers to proceed like this. I
cannot, and will not derive testcases from proprietary testsuites I've
looked at. I can't take this kind of risk.
Fortunately, the community (or at least one person from the community,
Brian R. Gaeke) has been contributing tests for postings like this.
> You can come up with a test case easily enough that doesn't copy the
> proprietary testsuite.
This is not enough for a clean-room development, and from my
understanding anything else is subject to copyright laws.
> If we do what you're suggesting, then we're all going to have to be
> writing each other's testcases.
Which happens to be exactly the right way to do testing, if you ask
me. If the person who writes the feature also writes the test,
s/he'll probably miss a number of cases s/he hadn't though of. Which
is precisely why testing teams should be separate from development
teams.
> In any case, the patch isn't correct, if I understand it correctly.
> You need to back and fix the linkage of the functions when the typedef
> is processed -- not later when the functions are defined.
Hmm... Sounds reasonable, I'll try to do that. Thanks,
--
Alexandre Oliva Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat GCC Developer aoliva@{cygnus.com, redhat.com}
CS PhD student at IC-Unicamp oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist Professional serial bug killer