From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD, FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Received: by 2002:a6b:b58c:: with SMTP id e134mr1994761iof.29.1554443118105; Thu, 04 Apr 2019 22:45:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:aca:c30f:: with SMTP id t15mr5932167oif.157.1554443117863; Thu, 04 Apr 2019 22:45:17 -0700 (PDT) Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!nntp-feed.chiark.greenend.org.uk!ewrotcd!usenet-its.stanford.edu!usenet.stanford.edu!78no59856itl.0!news-out.google.com!r82ni107ita.0!nntp.google.com!78no59854itl.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2019 22:45:17 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=165.225.84.79; posting-account=bMuEOQoAAACUUr_ghL3RBIi5neBZ5w_S NNTP-Posting-Host: 165.225.84.79 References: <1e27ce78-217d-4adc-8380-30f6d4fc5fdc@googlegroups.com> <878swq2q1m.fsf@nightsong.com> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <1352f43a-e549-4ddd-8e67-2e1c2ca25395@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: Intervention needed? From: Maciej Sobczak Injection-Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2019 05:45:18 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Xref: reader01.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:56079 Date: 2019-04-04T22:45:17-07:00 List-Id: > As gdb can be scripted, the tests that Maciej describes can probably be= =20 > automated, Yes. > albeit with considerable effort, Not really. I would say there is no need for this effort to be higher than = with any other form of test automation. Note that as with anything else in = software, recurring problems can be mitigated by additional code. That is, = if testing this way is difficult, then the difficulty is similar for the wh= ole class of similar tests and as such that difficulty can be refactored aw= ay to additional utility (library/framework/etc.) with simpler (higher-leve= l) interface. > especially if the scripts=20 > should be robust to evolution of the SW under test (changing the line=20 > numbers of the required breakpoints, etc.) This is a wider problem of traceability. You have to solve this problem any= way for the coverage analysis, for example. And the solution, whatever you = happen to use (like tool-readable labels in source comments), will help wit= h debugging, too. In any case, yes, some projects need the debugger to test individual memory= locations. The lack of proper tools is a technology risk. > However, I don't think that gdb or other current debuggers are=20 > ideal tools for automated checking of internal states. They are not. But a non-ideal working debugger is still better than a not w= orking one. --=20 Maciej Sobczak * http://www.inspirel.com