This is the mail archive of the gdb@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the GDB project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: external bugs

From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313 at redhat dot com>
To: David Carlton <carlton at math dot stanford dot edu>
Cc: gdb <gdb at sources dot redhat dot com>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 00:51:56 -0500
Subject: Re: external bugs
References: <ro1wuj1j18t.fsf@jackfruit.Stanford.EDU>

What was the consensus as to how we should mark external PR's, for use
with XFAILed tests?  The reason why I ask is that I wanted to file a
PR about 'break Class.method' failing in Java: this bug (which is
different from the 'break Class.method(args)' bug in PR 1039 that I've
just submitted a patch for) is due to a bug in GCJ, that I've just
filed a PR for.

But when I went to create a GDB bug, I noticed that 'external' was a
category.  That might make sense, but I'd really prefer for this bug
to be in the 'java' category.  Would adding an 'external' class make
sense?  Looking at the other classes (doc-bug, sw-bug, test-bug,
etc.), it seems to me like 'external' would fit in.  Then the bug
could be set to java/external/suspended, which I think would be a
useful classification.

What the heck, we've test as both class and category, why not external :-) I've added it.

Andrew

References:
- external bugs
  - From: David Carlton

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]