On Thursday 11 February 2010, Edgar Grimberg wrote:
> >> > Yes, systematic testing to help uncover regressions is really The Way
> >> > To Do Things. I'm not sure how complete our test coverage is, though.
> >>
> >> One entire category was intentionally left out: commands specific to
> >> targets.
> >
> > How about coverage of boards and board-level mechanisms, like 'reset-init'
> > event handlers to initialize things?
>
> I was referring to commands like:
> * arm11 vcr [value]
> * stm32x options_write bank_id ('SWWDG'|'HWWDG') ('RSTSTNDBY'|'NORSTSTNDBY')
> ('RSTSTOP'|'NORSTSTOP')
Right, and I was asking about another category of commands ...
> reset init is a valid command for all the targets, so the test cases
> don't have to be
> adjusted for different targets.
The "reset_init" command is distinct from "reset-init" event handlers
and other board level mechanisms.
> > Of course, there's also value in more ad-hoc testing; it's likely
> > to uncover different issues. But using purely ad-hoc testing would
> > ensure there are significant holes in test coverage.
>
> Ad-hoc testing happens as a natural part of the development process. Also,
> here the Monte Carlo method applies: more ad-hoc testing increases the
> chance of covering more code.
I had also suggested folk experiment in partciular with the *new* features
in this release ... to improve its coverage. Semihosting being the biggest
example.
- Dave
_______________________________________________
Openocd-development mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
