Re: GDB `cannotfix' pr state, require PR with xfail `moving forward'.

[Andrew Cagney <ac131313 at redhat dot com>]

> 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".
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.

Andrew


> 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".
>
> Michael C