From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20087 invoked by alias); 5 Dec 2002 21:46:03 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-prs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-prs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 20072 invoked by uid 71); 5 Dec 2002 21:46:02 -0000 Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 13:46:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20021205214602.20071.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: nobody@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, From: Wolfgang Bangerth Subject: Re: bootstrap/6680: [alphaev5-dec-osf5.0] gcc-3.1 build fails with internal error Reply-To: Wolfgang Bangerth X-SW-Source: 2002-12/txt/msg00315.txt.bz2 List-Id: The following reply was made to PR bootstrap/6680; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Wolfgang Bangerth To: gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org Cc: Subject: Re: bootstrap/6680: [alphaev5-dec-osf5.0] gcc-3.1 build fails with internal error Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 15:37:24 -0600 (CST) The following mail caused me to close all the duplicates listed below, except 6680. For the record, I send this mail to the audit trail of 6680. W. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 10:54:36 +0100 From: Emmanuel Thomé To: Wolfgang Bangerth Subject: Re: ICE/bootstrap alpha*-dec-osf5.0 OK, I'll contact the persons you mention. > > P.S: Perhaps most if not all of these PR's could be collapsed to a > > single one ? > > [...] > > Oh yes, I would be happy to do this. Can you indicate which of these I can > close and which other report I should reference in the closing message? > The bug database has become so large that it has become nearly unusable, > and it is really necessary to reduce same cases to only one > representative. Then I'm 100% sure that PRs # 6680, 6766, 7509, 7626, 7747, 7777, 8452, 6796 are duplicates of the same bug. The six other PRs I mention in my mail might be related to the same issue, but that's unclear. So this makes for 8 PRs that you can collapse into a single one ! None of them is significantly more accurate than the others, so picking a random one would do. Perhaps the one PR that you keep should include a reference to the ones that have been closed. Greetings, E.