On 13 February 2015 at 09:56, Dimitris Papastamos <s...@2f30.org> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 10:41:08AM +0100, FRIGN wrote: >> This is not the case anymore in big commercial programs, but this is >> far from the desired state. A modular approach, where you can assess >> that each part works as expected, can be way superior. >> If you make a change to a tool and can't be sure that it modifies >> edge-cases, there's something wrong with the program. > > It is also not the case if you want to test a very large number of > well-defined set of semantics. musl libc has a test[0] repo for this > purpose. This is however, outside the scope of sbase due to the > much lower complexity that we have to deal with. People should not > solely rely on the results of some automated testing however, but it > can help at times. > > [0] http://git.musl-libc.org/cgit/libc-testsuite/ >
That is true, most of sbase is at the lower end of the scale complexity and probably doesn't need a full test suite. Anyways, I'll let Dimitris get back to understanding my code on this one! :) -- Tai Chi Minh Ralph Eastwood tcmreastw...@gmail.com
