This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: NEW vs. UNCONFIRMED
- From: Wolfgang Bangerth <bangerth at ices dot utexas dot edu>
- To: Dara Hazeghi <dhazeghi at yahoo dot com>
- Cc: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2003 10:53:35 -0500 (CDT)
- Subject: Re: NEW vs. UNCONFIRMED
> Yes, that makes more sense. I think the general policy should be that
> bugs get closed only when there's good evidence that they've been
> fixed,
Certainly. Use common sense.
> No, but what I mean is that C/C++ bugs are _generally_ reproducible
> across targets, meaning you don't need a specific machine to test them
Not quite. We've got a number of PRs for windows specific things. But in
general true.
> > Dara seems like everything else :-)
>
> Not quite. Right now I have access to PowerPC/Darwin, x86/Linux,
> Sparc/Solaris. Hopefully this summer: HPPA/HPUX, IA64/HPUX, and
> IA64/Linux.
That _is_ almost everything else :-)
> Looks like the main missing ones are MIPS/IRIX, Alpha/Tru64 and the
> small embedded ones (SH, Arm, etc.).
I've got an old mips/irix machine, but it took 3 days to bootstrap 3.2.3,
and 3.3 didn't build at all...
> P.S. Could somebody take a look at 10922 sometime? I definitely should
> have taken a C++ course earlier this year, but until then...
We're already pretty well staffed in the C++ area. You're doing great in
others. So why generate overlap :-)
Can you send me preprocessed sources for the 3.4 failure, and how that one
line originally looked like?
W.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolfgang Bangerth email: bangerth@ices.utexas.edu
www: http://www.ices.utexas.edu/~bangerth/