Stefano Lattarini skrev 2012-02-03 18:41: > On 02/03/2012 03:51 PM, Peter Rosin wrote: >> >>>> Maybe depmod.tap should be replaced/rewritten with "compilers" that >>>> simulate the different depmods? I could tinker with that a bit... >>>> >>> Yeah, I had thought about the possibility of such an approach, but was >>> reluctant to suggest it, since it would entail non-trivial work that >>> can only offer brittle and unsure results anyway... Maybe we should >>> simply make it clear that 'decomp' only offers "best-effort" support >>> for non-mainstream compilers (i.e., different from GCC >= 4.x and from >>> recent Sun Studio or MSVC compilers); if problems show up, the user >>> should just use "./configure --disable-dependency-tracking" (and maybe >>> send us a patch if he's kind and motivated enough). >> >> .oO(It would surely have caught a patch that massively destroyed depcomp) >> > I'm failing to parse this, sorry. Could you elaborate or rephrase? Thanks.
Even if the simulators are "brittle" and offer "unsure results", I was thinking - i.e. the .oO(...) notation - that such a test would have caught when I totally destroyed depcomp. I'm sure you agree that having the dependency mode simulator tests wouldn't be bad, if they just magically appeared and noone had to write it all. Cheers, Peter
