This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [rfa/doco] PROBLEMS: add regressions since gdb 6.0
- From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at elta dot co dot il>
- To: Andrew Cagney <cagney at gnu dot org>
- Cc: mec dot gnu at mindspring dot com,gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: 18 Mar 2004 08:18:20 +0200
- Subject: Re: [rfa/doco] PROBLEMS: add regressions since gdb 6.0
- References: <20040317225423.E42474B104@berman.michael-chastain.com> <4058E1C6.firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at elta dot co dot il>
> Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 18:39:50 -0500
> From: Andrew Cagney <email@example.com>
> NEWS contains a history of GDB, PROBLEMS does not.
> PROBLEMS is there to identify late breaking screwups and other issues in
> just _this_ release.
Not necessarily. It depends on what purpose we want PROBLEMS to
One way of looking at PROBLEMS is as a repository of bugs that the GDB
team already knows about, and that users therefore should not report
as new bugs. PROBLEMS can also mention work-arounds, so that users
who bump into them can do whatever they need even though the bug isn't
If viewed like that, it would make sense for PROBLEMS to include all
the bugs that are still not fixed, even if they date back to version
0.0. Bugs that are solved should indeed be deleted from PROBLEMS.
(Btw, if GDB still has bugs known since v0.0, it would say something
quite unflattering about GDB maintenance, and that alone is IMHO a
reason good enough to keep old unsolved bugs on record.)