Re: GDB `cannotfix' pr state, require PR with xfail `moving forward'.

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>]

On Fri, Jan 17, 2003 at 03:52:59PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> >On Fri, Jan 17, 2003 at 03:12:35PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> >
> >>
> >
> >>>In that case I'd want "broken in all GCC's" to be open rather than
> >>>suspended.  Does this bother anyone?
> >
> >>
> >>Yes, that bothers me, it would be wrong.  The only time a PR is in the 
> >>open state is when no one has looked at it.  As soon as someone looks at 
> >>the PR, it should be changed from open to some other state - analized, 
> >>suspended, closed, ...
> >
> >
> >Substitute "a state other than suspended or closed".  Better?  Probably
> >"analyzed".
> 
> Not really.  Analyzed, I think, still implies that it is GDB's problem. 
>  Suspended and closed, on the other hand don't

We don't work in a void; ideally, we want to fix debug info bugs which
are still present in current GCC.  It seems to me that tracking them in
the GDB PR system is reasonable.

Hmm, maybe not, maybe file a suspended bug and reference an open one in
GCC's PRMS.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer