This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [Bug target/16300] Bug in vendor /usr/include/net/if.h needs fixincluding
- From: "Giovanni Bajo" <giovannibajo at libero dot it>
- To: "Bruce Korb" <bkorb at veritas dot com>
- Cc: <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>,"GCC-Patches" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 15:37:12 +0200
- Subject: Re: [Bug target/16300] Bug in vendor /usr/include/net/if.h needs fixincluding
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <41734D28.A5607C6A@veritas.com>
Bruce Korb wrote:
>> I can only fix things about which I get feedback so it
>> incrementally gets better. I'm sorry you found it difficult.
Sure, I did not want to sound offensive.
>> Also, it does not explain if it is possible (and how) to use the
>> test_text to
>> verify the correctness of the fix. When I run 'make check' I don't
>> if my new hack is being tested or not, and if it is correct or not.
> "test-text" should contain one or more examples of broken text that
> needs to be fixed. "make check" will spin a file with that text in it
> and run the "fixinc" program, then run a recursive "diff" between the
> patched files and a set of example files. Any differences are
I still do not understand. The diff is being performed between the patched file
and what example files? If I add a new fix, should I also put a patched
(correct) version in the set of example files (where are they)?
> So, when you make a fix, you should pretty well understand how the
> broken text ought to be transformed. In the "make check", you ought
> to see a diff that includes that new transform in the new output and
> not in the sample output.
Now I am confused. I do not understand which of the following holds true:
- The diff shows what fixinclude did. It shows the different between the
original version (extracted from test-text) and the version that fixinclude
produced by applying your diff.
- The diff shows the mistakes of fixinclude, if any. It shows the different
between what fixinclude produced as output (by applying your fix to the
test-text) and what it is the expected result (which you have to put in a
different file -- where? how?).
>> 4. Rebuild the compiler and check the header causing the issue.
>> Make sure it is now properly handled. Add tests to the
>> "test_text" entry(ies) that validate your fix. This will
>> help ensure that future fixes won't negate your work.
> That means first, ensure the header you want fixed is fixed.
> Then, incorporate the brokenness in the "text-text" field.
> Then, ensure it is fixed in the sample output.
> Then, add the fixed result into the baseline sample files.
This process can be done if you have physical access to the host with the
broken header. In my case, I was developing a fixinclude for a broken header
for another system. I have the broken header as a file (attacched to the bug).
How can I test my fix in this situation?
BTW: "rebuild the compiler" is a tad too much as first quick test for a
fixinclude (e.g. check that the regulard expression does not have a typo or
so). Even assuming access to the host, would you please explain if there is a
quicker wasy to just run fixincludes without rebuilding everything? Of course,
a full bootstrap would be still required as a final check.
> That means send me email if you are still having problems.