public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "mark at codesourcery dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug other/15082] [3.4/4.0/4.1 regression] Minor compilation problem for cross to Solaris 8
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 22:39:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20051030223857.4122.qmail@sourceware.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-15082-5925@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
------- Comment #17 from mark at codesourcery dot com 2005-10-30 22:38 -------
Subject: Re: [3.4/4.0/4.1 regression] Minor compilation
problem for cross to Solaris 8
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> ------- Comment #16 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-30 22:36 -------
> (In reply to comment #15)
>
>>Subject: Re: [3.4/4.0/4.1 regression] Minor compilation
>> problem for cross to Solaris 8
>>What's this "4.1blocker-" stuff about? This certainly isn't a 4.1
>>blocker, and that information is already computable from the other
>>fields, as I've described.
>
>
> Flags are better as we can have a requestor and only one group of people able
> to set the flag (you in this case). So if I requested this should be a
> blocker, you can deny it without even being CC'd to the bug. It is a little
> more automated than what fields do. This is why I asked about flags. Fields
> to me should not be used in this way.
I don't think I agree. Maybe I can be made to, but please drive this on
the GCC list, and get buy-in, rather than doing it unilaterally. These
fields are tools for the RM, and all you're doing at the moment is
confusing me.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15082
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-10-30 22:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <bug-15082-5925@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2005-10-30 22:23 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-10-30 22:33 ` mark at codesourcery dot com
2005-10-30 22:36 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-10-30 22:39 ` mark at codesourcery dot com [this message]
2006-03-11 3:20 ` [Bug other/15082] [3.4/4.0/4.1/4.2 " mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-06-20 15:36 ` [Bug other/15082] [4.0/4.1/4.2 " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-06-20 15:57 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-01-18 2:54 ` [Bug other/15082] [4.0/4.1/4.2/4.3 " gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-01-21 21:19 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-02-14 9:31 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-12-18 20:16 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-04-22 23:22 [Bug c/15082] New: Minor compilation problem on Solaris-2.8 duz at sol-3 dot de
2005-05-19 17:49 ` [Bug other/15082] [3.4/4.0/4.1 regression] Minor compilation problem for cross to Solaris 8 mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-07-22 21:36 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-09-27 16:24 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20051030223857.4122.qmail@sourceware.org \
--to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).