From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12512 invoked by alias); 17 Jan 2003 20:16:43 -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 12501 invoked from network); 17 Jan 2003 20:16:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (216.138.202.10) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 17 Jan 2003 20:16:41 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 999AD3E2F; Fri, 17 Jan 2003 15:16:41 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3E2864A9.4090607@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 20:16:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20021211 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Michael Elizabeth Chastain Cc: drow@mvista.com, gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: GDB `cannotfix' pr state, require PR with xfail `moving forward'. References: <200301171945.h0HJjD405622@duracef.shout.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-01/txt/msg00329.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". 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. Andrew > 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 >