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

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>]

On Fri, Jan 17, 2003 at 06:28:11PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> >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.
> 
> Tracking them locally is definitly reasonable, yes.  Someone finds a 
> problem with GDB, searches the bug database and finds, that the problem 
> is known and in tool XYZ.
> 
> >Hmm, maybe not, maybe file a suspended bug and reference an open one in
> >GCC's PRMS.
> 
> Right.

Sounds good to me.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer