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: Fixing Bugs (Was: A Suggestion for Release Testing)

From: Robert Dewar <dewar at adacore dot com>
To: Scott Robert Ladd <scott dot ladd at coyotegulch dot com>
Cc: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 07:11:27 -0400
Subject: Re: Fixing Bugs (Was: A Suggestion for Release Testing)
References: <42A8A9B9.3080601@coyotegulch.com> <42AE7B9A.8080200@codesourcery.com> <42AEE65D.7090707@coyotegulch.com> <42AEF6CD.6060703@adacore.com> <42AEFD9D.8030401@coyotegulch.com>

Scott Robert Ladd wrote:

No, what they do is redefine the bug such that it is no longer a bug.
Certain U.S. Presidents are quite fond of this tactic, recategorizing
things to avoid dealing with them. Bug 323 is an example of how GCC does
this.


I don't know of any example of this. That is a case where something is
clearly a non-conformance with the language definition, and has been
declared not a bug.

References:
- A Suggestion for Release Testing
  - From: Scott Robert Ladd
- Re: A Suggestion for Release Testing
  - From: Mark Mitchell
- Fixing Bugs (Was: A Suggestion for Release Testing)
  - From: Scott Robert Ladd
- Re: Fixing Bugs (Was: A Suggestion for Release Testing)
  - From: Robert Dewar
- Re: Fixing Bugs (Was: A Suggestion for Release Testing)
  - From: Scott Robert Ladd

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