From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20671 invoked by alias); 17 Jan 2003 20:28:06 -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 20621 invoked from network); 17 Jan 2003 20:28:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO duracef.shout.net) (204.253.184.12) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 17 Jan 2003 20:28:05 -0000 Received: (from mec@localhost) by duracef.shout.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0HKS1006718; Fri, 17 Jan 2003 14:28:01 -0600 Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 20:28:00 -0000 From: Michael Elizabeth Chastain Message-Id: <200301172028.h0HKS1006718@duracef.shout.net> To: ac131313@redhat.com Subject: Re: GDB `cannotfix' pr state, require PR with xfail `moving forward'. Cc: drow@mvista.com, gdb@sources.redhat.com X-SW-Source: 2003-01/txt/msg00331.txt.bz2 Andrew C writes: > If the bug is fixed in GCC we might as well indicate this by closing our > side of the bug report. No reason to hang onto a bug report that has > been resolved. Does this include the XFAIL's for gcc v2 stabs+ in gdb.base/constvars.exp? I really think that it's a year too early to close a gdb bug report with gcc 2.95.3 by saying "it works if you use gcc 3.X". But, okay, in that case, I'll stop testing with gcc 2.95.3. Because any bugs that I find with gcc 2.95.3 that do not manifest with gcc 3.2.1 would just get closed with "fixed in gcc 3.2.1". Michael C