This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Bug still in 3.0.1
- To: mike stump <mrs at windriver dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, pinkfloydhomer at yahoo dot com
- Subject: Re: Bug still in 3.0.1
- From: David Rasmussen <pinkfloydhomer at yahoo dot com>
- Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 03:12:55 -0700 (PDT)
--- mike stump <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 14:22:52 -0700 (PDT)
> > From: David Rasmussen <email@example.com>
> > To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> > This bug wasn't there in gcc 2.95.3, so why wasn't
> it fixed in gcc
> > 3.0.1
> Because you either didn't submit a patch to fix it,
> or because you
> didn't ensure that we got your patch and put it in?
I was under the impression that if I reported the bug
to gnats (which I did) and got the bug acknowledged by
some guy responsible for handling my gnats submit
(which it was) and if that guy even reported what the
bug was, and implicitly how it should be fixed (which
he did), then the bugfix would at sometime be in a
future release of gcc. And now that this bug wasn't in
2.95.3, I was under the impression that if a fix was
available, it would be in 3.0.1 .
It is a severe bug IMO, and I suspect an easy fix,
even if I haven't checked the source code of
in_avail(), because this is sort of a boundary case
(there are zero elements in the buffer), and could be
dealt with seperately, if not in any other way.
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger