From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23062 invoked by alias); 17 Jan 2003 19:45:17 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 23054 invoked from network); 17 Jan 2003 19:45:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO duracef.shout.net) (204.253.184.12) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 17 Jan 2003 19:45:14 -0000 Received: (from mec@localhost) by duracef.shout.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0HJjD405622; Fri, 17 Jan 2003 13:45:13 -0600 Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 19:45:00 -0000 From: Michael Elizabeth Chastain Message-Id: <200301171945.h0HJjD405622@duracef.shout.net> To: drow@mvista.com, gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: GDB `cannotfix' pr state, require PR with xfail `moving forward'. X-SW-Source: 2003-01/txt/msg00317.txt.bz2 Daniel J writes: > Would an external defect relating to GCC 2.95.3, fixed in 3.2, be > marked "closed"? I think not. I think it would continue to be "suspended". My opinion is that we support gcc 2.95.3 and gcc 3.2.1. "support" means that we test with them before releasing gdb, that we pay attention to bug reports on those versions, and that we don't automatically tell people using that software to upgrade. E.g. we don't support gcc 2.95.2, or gcc 3.0.4. It would be great to have a more authoritative document about what compilers gdb supports (and what "support" means) than the preceeding paragraph, which I basically made up. The fact that "gcc 2.95.3" and "gcc 3.2" have different major version numbers has something to do with this, but not everything. I don't think we support gcc 1.42 or whatever the last gcc 1.X was. Whenever the Head Maintainer says that gcc 2.95.3 is no longer supported then I will stop testing with it. I think that is the proper time to close an external defect that is "broken with gcc 2.95.3, works with gcc 3.2". Michael C