From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20389 invoked by alias); 18 Jan 2003 11:33:03 -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 20381 invoked from network); 18 Jan 2003 11:33:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO frigg.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.16) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 18 Jan 2003 11:33:02 -0000 Received: from zaretsky ([80.230.194.52]) by frigg.inter.net.il (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.2.1-GA) with ESMTP id CCI18901; Sat, 18 Jan 2003 13:32:42 +0200 (IST) Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2003 11:33:00 -0000 From: "Eli Zaretskii" To: mec@shout.net Message-Id: <9743-Sat18Jan2003133115+0200-eliz@is.elta.co.il> CC: ac131313@redhat.com, drow@mvista.com, gdb@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <200301172028.h0HKS1006718@duracef.shout.net> (message from Michael Elizabeth Chastain on Fri, 17 Jan 2003 14:28:01 -0600) Subject: Re: GDB `cannotfix' pr state, require PR with xfail `moving forward'. Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <200301172028.h0HKS1006718@duracef.shout.net> X-SW-Source: 2003-01/txt/msg00341.txt.bz2 > Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 14:28:01 -0600 > From: Michael Elizabeth Chastain > > Andrew C writes: > > 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. > > Does this include the XFAIL's for gcc v2 stabs+ in gdb.base/constvars.exp? > > I really think that it's a year too early to close a gdb bug report > with gcc 2.95.3 by saying "it works if you use gcc 3.X". I agree. I also think that if we introduce new bugs in some feature which did support older compilers, that bug should be fixed, even if it's not exposed by newer GCC versions.