From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26399 invoked by alias); 26 Sep 2010 13:24:35 -0000 Received: (qmail 26390 invoked by uid 22791); 26 Sep 2010 13:24:34 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from imr-mb01.mx.aol.com (HELO imr-mb01.mx.aol.com) (64.12.207.164) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sun, 26 Sep 2010 13:24:27 +0000 Received: from mtaout-ma01.r1000.mx.aol.com (mtaout-ma01.r1000.mx.aol.com [172.29.41.1]) by imr-mb01.mx.aol.com (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id o8QDNre1029074; Sun, 26 Sep 2010 09:23:53 -0400 Received: from [192.168.0.2] (204.74.63.81.cust.bluewin.ch [81.63.74.204]) by mtaout-ma01.r1000.mx.aol.com (MUA/Third Party Client Interface) with ESMTPA id 2926DE0000B5; Sun, 26 Sep 2010 09:23:53 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4C9F4968.6000300@netscape.net> Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2010 13:24:00 -0000 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Fr=E9d=E9ric_Buclin?= Reply-To: LpSolit@netscape.net User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; fr; rv:1.9.2.9) Gecko/20100915 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Joel Brobecker CC: Andreas Schwab , gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Closed bugs with no resolution in the 'gdb' product References: <4C9E6B57.8030509@netscape.net> <4C9E8950.2050808@netscape.net> <20100925235622.GP3044@adacore.com> In-Reply-To: <20100925235622.GP3044@adacore.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit x-aol-global-disposition: G X-AOL-SCOLL-SCORE: 0:2:333320480:93952408 X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 0 x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d29014c9f496974f4 X-AOL-IP: 81.63.74.204 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2010-09/txt/msg00142.txt.bz2 Le 26. 09. 10 01:56, Joel Brobecker a écrit : > the new PR numbers using: PR-bugzilla = PR-gnats + 7105. I finally managed to guess the bug ID for most of them. Most of the time, the same bug was filed several times in a row. So I just had to look at the previous bug (bug N-1), and it was indeed the same one. :) This leaves us with bug 7321 only, which I have no idea where the duplicate is.