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'.
- From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>
- To: gdb at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 14:46:46 -0500
- Subject: Re: GDB `cannotfix' pr state, require PR with xfail `moving forward'.
- References: <200301171945.h0HJjD405622@duracef.shout.net>
On Fri, Jan 17, 2003 at 01:45:13PM -0600, Michael Elizabeth Chastain wrote:
> 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".
>
> 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".
In that case I'd want "broken in all GCC's" to be open rather than
suspended. Does this bother anyone?
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer