This is the mail archive of the
gdb@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: GDB `cannotfix' pr state, require PR with xfail `moving forward'.
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