From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2242 invoked by alias); 23 Feb 2003 21:01:55 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 2235 invoked from network); 23 Feb 2003 21:01:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ms-smtp-03.nyroc.rr.com) (24.92.226.153) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 23 Feb 2003 21:01:54 -0000 Received: from doctormoo (syr-24-24-17-145.twcny.rr.com [24.24.17.145]) by ms-smtp-03.nyroc.rr.com (8.12.5/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h1NL1rbF007836; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 16:01:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from neroden by doctormoo with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 18n3Fq-0000l4-00; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 16:01:46 -0500 Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 21:50:00 -0000 To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, joel.sherril@oarcorp.com Subject: Re: Target-specific bugs (was Re: Number of 3.3 hi-pri PRs going up) Message-ID: <20030223210145.GA538@doctormoo> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i From: Nathanael Nerode X-SW-Source: 2003-02/txt/msg01555.txt.bz2 Joel wrote: >I don't know that this is entirely true. I have been reporting on my >results of building about 35-40 cross targets on a GNU/Linux. On those You rock! ... >> For another thought, I strongly suggest that any bug in feedback and >> without feedback for 3 months be closed, and that this be documented >> somewhere. (The standard I've been using is 6 months, which I think >is >> overly generous.) > >I think that will end up closing some that are simply being ignored >without >ever being addressed or fixed. For example, I filed PR 3587 >on "Fri Jul 06 06:46:02 PDT 2001", it still applies to the 3.2 and 3.3 >branches >(no testing on trunk), and has never gotten a bit of attention. Shouldn't be in feedback anymore -- feedback is for 'maintainers need more information to reproduce'. And I meant 'waiting for feedback for > 3 months'. I would like to throw away some reports which haven't been tested on any current version (only RH2.96 or earlier), but if it's been reproduced on the 3.2 or 3.3 branches, it should certainly be open. (Well, except for the mass of C++ old parser bugs, since they're really 'wontfix' bugs prior to the new parser). (Or if it's a bug against a dead target, in which case we should pull support for the target rather than pretending it works. Which requires discussion on gcc@gcc.gnu.org first.) Sorry nobody's actually fixed your bug. --Nathanael