This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: c++/8931: g++ 3.2 fails to enforce access rules
- From: Wolfgang Bangerth <bangerth at ticam dot utexas dot edu>
- To: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, <gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org>, <sebor at roguewave dot com>, <gcc-gnats at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 15:17:17 -0600 (CST)
- Subject: Re: c++/8931: g++ 3.2 fails to enforce access rules
> | Synopsis: g++ 3.2 fails to enforce access rules
> | State-Changed-From-To: open->closed
> | Since it is not a regression, it is not going to be fixed
> | in any 3.2.* and there is no value in keeping this report
> | open.
>
> It would be really helpful if non-invasive bug fixes could make it to
> branch when it is not frozen.
>
> Setting the bar to only regression fixes is, IMHO, too high and
> renders the dot releases less useful and less attractive. Indeed,
> I've seen lot of PRs being closed on the basis that they are fixed on
> mainline and since they are not regressions they won't be fixed in
> 3.2.x. The net effect is that people would have to wait for some (long)
> undeterminated time before they had a compiler that fixes the bugs,
> and meanwhile we will be releasing compilers that could include
> those patches.
I think I even concur, I am just executing the policies that have been
set. However, in the discussion I would like some points to be kept in
mind:
- if there are too many open reports in the database, it is difficult to
manage and very annoying when one re-visits reports that are "half-open"
every so often. You do realize that we presently have about 1800 (!)
non-closed reports and that it is easy to lose yourself into this
amount, right?
- given the really *large* number of open bug reports, I think the scarce
bug fixing resources gcc has serve the community better in the long term
if we let them focus on 3.3, rather than spending time backporting
fixes. This way we might get 3.3 out earlier, which will certainly be
better than any 3.2.2.
- if we allow other patches into the branch, it needs more testing; the
thing with limited resources applies here as well.
- someone will have to find the patch that fixed it on the mainline.
For this particular case I don't know how invasive the fix might be, so I
can't comment on its impact on stability of the branch.
W.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolfgang Bangerth email: bangerth@ticam.utexas.edu
www: http://www.ticam.utexas.edu/~bangerth