From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1QbGVB-0002cq-33 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 18:25:41 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D8F7C1C11F; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 18:25:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA0D81C11F for ; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 18:25:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-vx0-f181.google.com (mail-vx0-f181.google.com [209.85.220.181]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: mattst88) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 175DD1BC017 for ; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 18:25:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: by vxa40 with SMTP id 40so4371189vxa.40 for ; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 11:25:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.52.66.51 with SMTP id c19mr8611004vdt.36.1309199115084; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 11:25:15 -0700 (PDT) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-catalyst@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-catalyst@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.52.158.168 with HTTP; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 11:24:55 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4E08C969.6010502@gentoo.org> References: <4E08C0DD.5010003@gentoo.org> <4E08C969.6010502@gentoo.org> From: Matt Turner Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 14:24:55 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-catalyst] [rfc] simplifying arch classes To: gentoo-catalyst@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: 053a8b3ba80922e0f01c3c06bffae89a On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 2:18 PM, Sebastian Pipping wrote= : >> This is certainly not the case. Let me be clear, mistakes in the >> current code come from having the same CFLAG, CHOST, etc strings >> duplicated in many places. Refactoring the code would allow us to >> catch mistakes like >> http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=3Dproj/catalyst.git;a=3Dcommit;= h=3Ddb4323146ce27362948de6eab57e1dbe28240bde >> much more quickly. >> >> It seems to me that test coverage would be much simpler if the classes >> were refactored, since various combinations would use nearly identical >> code paths. > > It would make some code pathes being taken more often but still leave > the "leafes" ontouched without a test for each leaf. =A0Right? > > What could work though is a throw-away test for refactoring only, say > writing a piece of code making a text file listing all combination of > CFLAGS offered from targets. =A0If after the refactoring you get the very > same text file out, that's a good indicator. =A0Is the idea clear? Yep, that should work and wouldn't be very much work. That seems like a good idea. Thanks! Matt