From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26604 invoked by alias); 25 Apr 2003 15:26:01 -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 26580 invoked by uid 71); 25 Apr 2003 15:26:00 -0000 Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 15:26:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20030425152600.26578.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: nobody@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, From: Wolfgang Bangerth Subject: Re: optimization/4490 Reply-To: Wolfgang Bangerth X-SW-Source: 2003-04/txt/msg01107.txt.bz2 List-Id: The following reply was made to PR optimization/4490; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Wolfgang Bangerth To: Richard Henderson Cc: gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: optimization/4490 Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 10:18:59 -0500 (CDT) > > What startles me with that one is that it is suspended. What is the reason > > for that? > > I use "suspended" for things we acknowledge are bugs, but > have no plans to ever fix. I'm not sure whether I like the approach, but I see that it's consistent with our guidelines. For similar cases: can you leave a note in the audit trail of this "no plans to fix" when you suspend a PR? Thanks for the clarification! W. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wolfgang Bangerth email: bangerth@ices.utexas.edu www: http://www.ices.utexas.edu/~bangerth/