This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GCC 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: gcc/gcc/testsuite ChangeLog gcc.dg/c90-const-e ...

On Sun, 24 Oct 2004, Geoff Keating wrote:

> > This patch doesn't yet seem to have appeared on gcc-patches.  In any case,
> > regressions should only be marked XFAIL when there is a corresponding PR
> > marked as a regression, i.e. you need to mark bug 5675 as a regression or
> > open a new regression bug and make bug 5675 depend on it.
> I tried to do the right things to update bug 5675; I hope I got it right.

I believe that's done correctly.  While working on a new C parser I don't 
expect to be working on implementing my constant expressions formal models 
so I expect in due course the target milestone for this bug will be put 
back to 4.1, but it's quite proper for every regression bug, no matter how 
obscure or unlikely to be of importance to users, to have its target 
milestone set in the first instance to the next release after it 
regressed, and for it to be left to the RM to decide which bugs get their 
milestones set back.

Joseph S. Myers      (personal mail) (CodeSourcery mail) (Bugzilla assignments and CCs)

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