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 <gentoo-catalyst+bounces-2404-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>)
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 <gentoo-catalyst@lists.gentoo.org>; 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 <gentoo-catalyst@lists.gentoo.org>; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 18:25:16 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by vxa40 with SMTP id 40so4371189vxa.40
for <gentoo-catalyst@lists.gentoo.org>; 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: <mailto:gentoo-catalyst@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-catalyst+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-catalyst+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-catalyst+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-catalyst.gentoo.org>
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: <BANLkTikRAXECejd_6mmw_w3=7HCgGE-3NA@mail.gmail.com>
<4E08C0DD.5010003@gentoo.org> <BANLkTin5yxkjPvJvYcRFcMvQd47pV1b_gg@mail.gmail.com>
<4E08C969.6010502@gentoo.org>
From: Matt Turner <mattst88@gentoo.org>
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 14:24:55 -0400
Message-ID: <BANLkTim1exr+cEMQhqhhP7B_nzemtUw2GA@mail.gmail.com>
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 <sping@gentoo.org> 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