Re: NEW vs. UNCONFIRMED

[Wolfgang Bangerth <bangerth@ices.utexas.edu>]

> Yes, that makes more sense. I think the general policy should be that 
> bugs get closed only when there's good evidence that they've been 
> fixed,

Certainly. Use common sense.


> No, but what I mean is that C/C++ bugs are _generally_ reproducible 
> across targets, meaning you don't need a specific machine to test them 

Not quite. We've got a number of PRs for windows specific things. But in 
general true.


>  >   Dara       seems like everything else :-)
> 
> Not quite. Right now I have access to PowerPC/Darwin, x86/Linux, 
> Sparc/Solaris. Hopefully this summer: HPPA/HPUX, IA64/HPUX, and 
> IA64/Linux.

That _is_ almost everything else :-)


> Looks like the main missing ones are MIPS/IRIX, Alpha/Tru64 and the 
> small embedded ones (SH, Arm, etc.).

I've got an old mips/irix machine, but it took 3 days to bootstrap 3.2.3, 
and 3.3 didn't build at all...


> P.S. Could somebody take a look at 10922 sometime? I definitely should 
> have taken a C++ course earlier this year, but until then...

We're already pretty well staffed in the C++ area. You're doing great in 
others. So why generate overlap :-)

Can you send me preprocessed sources for the 3.4 failure, and how that one 
line originally looked like?

W.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolfgang Bangerth              email:            bangerth@ices.utexas.edu
                               www: http://www.ices.utexas.edu/~bangerth/