This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
open high priority bugs
- To: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Subject: open high priority bugs
- From: Nathan Sidwell <nathan at codesourcery dot com>
- Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 18:23:52 +0100
- CC: dje at watson dot ibm dot com, mark at codesourcery dot com, jsturm at one-point dot com, nickc at redhat dot com, philb at gnu dot org, carlo at alinoe dot com, wolfgang dot bangerth at iwr dot uni-heidelberg dot de, candida at tiptree dot demon dot co dot uk, aoliva at redhat dot com, kettenis at gnu dot org, neil at gcc dot gnu dot org, dmuell at gmx dot net, tot at trema dot com, denisc at overta dot ru, Sergey dot Shalnov at intel dot com, hubicka at freesoft dot cz, kreckel at ginac dot de, bothner at bothner dot com
- Organization: Codesourcery LLC
Hi,
There were some 22 bugs in the open state with high priority.
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?database=gcc&cmd=submit%20query&category=all&severity=all&priority=high&responsible=all&state=open&ignoreclosed=Ignore%20Closed&class=all&synopsis=&multitext=&columns=category&columns=state&columns=class&columns=responsible&columns=synopsis&sortby=Responsible&.cgifields=columns&.cgifields=originatedbyme&.cgifields=ignoreclosed
By useage, this condition should be unreachable. Open bugs should first
be analyzed to confirm them, and then possibly made high priority.
I have ruthlessly downgraded those that are obviously not 3.0 related,
leaving 18 remaining.
If your name is on the cc list, then you had some input to the remaining
bugs, please take a look and either
a) downgrade them (or ask me to do it for you)
b) make a case to Mark as to why they should be high priority.
nathan
--
Dr Nathan Sidwell :: http://www.codesourcery.com :: CodeSourcery LLC
'But that's a lie.' - 'Yes it is. What's your point?'
nathan@codesourcery.com : http://www.cs.bris.ac.uk/~nathan/ : nathan@acm.org