From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29280 invoked by alias); 17 Jan 2003 22:06:35 -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 29272 invoked from network); 17 Jan 2003 22:06:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (65.125.64.184) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 17 Jan 2003 22:06:34 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org ([66.93.61.169] ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 18ZgW6-0000f6-00 for ; Fri, 17 Jan 2003 18:07:18 -0600 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 18ZedJ-00044i-00 for ; Fri, 17 Jan 2003 17:06:37 -0500 Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 22:06:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: GDB `cannotfix' pr state, require PR with xfail `moving forward'. Message-ID: <20030117220637.GA15625@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <200301171945.h0HJjD405622@duracef.shout.net> <20030117194646.GA13074@nevyn.them.org> <3E2863B3.6010207@redhat.com> <20030117201841.GA14124@nevyn.them.org> <3E286D2B.4010605@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3E286D2B.4010605@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-01/txt/msg00334.txt.bz2 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