Ralph wrote: > It occurs to me that it may be quicker to write tests that aim to > increase coverage rather than test actual output against expected, etc. > That would then give valgrind more to chew on. They could then be > fleshed out separately, especially if they were marked in some way, to > have their results checked.
I prefer that the output always be checked. If valgrind doesn't find a problem, it doesn't mean that the output is correct. David _______________________________________________ Nmh-workers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
