This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org 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: gccbug reports?

From: Paul Brook <paul at codesourcery dot com>
To: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Cc: Phil Edwards <phil at codesourcery dot com>,Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin dot org>,Steve Kargl <sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu>
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 20:41:49 +0100
Subject: Re: gccbug reports?
Organization: CodeSourcery
References: <20040615011930.GA7073@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <2860DDCA-BE76-11D8-AF3E-000A95DA505C@dberlin.org> <20040615191619.GA29641@disaster.jaj.com>

On Tuesday 15 June 2004 20:16, Phil Edwards wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 10:46:10PM -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> > We don't expect users to actually get the component/category right, or
> > the priority/severity for that matter :)
>
> Agreed.  But then we shouldn't force them to choose.  (I'm reminded of
> King Meneldur's soliloquy in Tolkien's writings.)
>
> How about all three categories?  Let the user feel relatively secure in
> choosing "optimization", and then somebody who knows can fine-tune it.
>
> Alternatively, don't {make,allow} the user choose, if there's no way for
> him to get it right.  Leave it "unrefined" until a maintainer can set it.

Maybe we want an "unknown" category? The way the user can be confient thay 
haven't given incorrect information. Even better if it appears at the top of 
the list :)

Paul

References:
- gccbug reports?
  - From: Steve Kargl
- Re: gccbug reports?
  - From: Daniel Berlin
- Re: gccbug reports?
  - From: Phil Edwards

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