Re: Coverage for libltdl/slist.c and fallout

[Bob Friesenhahn]

On Sun, 6 Dec 2009, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> More generally, I am really convinced that libltdl quality is the way it
> is only because authors never really cared to ensure their code really
> does what it was supposed to do.  If we continue to treat testing and
> coverage as an afterthought, there is little reason to believe that is
> going to change.  So yes, I pretty much think that all code that isn't
> exercised by the testsuite but could be, does not belong in the tree.

There is no doubt that testing is important.  It seems most important 
(to me) that externally-exposed interfaces should be validated before 
there is intense focus on test coverage of internal interfaces.  For 
example, it is already known that the .la file parser is fragile and 
trivial edits to an .la file will cause the using program to 
core-dump.  The .la file parsing is an external interface so it should 
get more priority.

Bob
--
Bob Friesenhahn
address@hidden, http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/
GraphicsMagick Maintainer,    http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/