------- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2004-10-18 13:37 ------- Subject: Re: Bug in vendor /usr/include/net/if.h needs fixincluding
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 >> understand >> 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 > highlighted. 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. Thanks Giovanni Bajo -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16300
