This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: bugs fixed on the tree-ssa
- From: "Giovanni Bajo" <giovannibajo at libero dot it>
- To: "Richard Guenther" <rguenth at tat dot physik dot uni-tuebingen dot de>,"Joe Buck" <Joe dot Buck at synopsys dot COM>
- Cc: "Andrew Pinski" <pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu>,"Bugzilla Masters" <bugzilla-masters at dberlin dot org>,<gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 12:39:07 +0100
- Subject: Re: bugs fixed on the tree-ssa
- References: <Pine.LNX.4.53.0312171041240.6232@bellatrix.tat.physik.uni-tuebingen.de>
Richard Guenther <rguenth@tat.physik.uni-tuebingen.de> wrote:
>> My suggestion is as follows: if it's a non-regression, and we don't plan
>> to try to fix it for 3.4, marking it as fixed in tree-ssa seems right.
>
> I don't think it is wise to mark bugs in released or to-be-released gcc
> versions fixed in a branch that is not for sure going to be integrated in
> any forseeable release, no? It would be better to only suspend it, I
> think, as otherwise, in the odd case that tree-ssa doesnt get merged,
> we're not missing them. Or maybe even add a state
> fixed-in-development-branch or such would be useful here?
I agree. Suspended looks like an appropriate state for me. Let's just wait
until the merge really happens, and then we can revisit the bugs. Meanwhile, it
might be useful to add the testcases for the bugs to the branch, so that we can
reasonably sure that they stay fixed.
Giovanni Bajo