Re: c++/3025

[George Garvey <tmwg-garvey at inxservices dot com>]

>    Please provide the preprocessed source as described at
>      http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html

   Do you suppose someone could condescend to explain how to do that with
gccbug, as well as ask for a proper report?
   I made this request weeks ago (although not this one, because I did
include the .ii). As is common with this group, it was completely ignored.
   No mention of gccbug is even in the referenced URL. Is it supplied
because it shouldn't be used? It's sometimes requires time and effort to
provide a decent bug report. But it makes me wonder whether they are really
desired, considering how many I've made which have been ignored as far as I
could tell. Of course, others I've made have been attended to. I understand
the volunteer stuff: okay, no one fixed it. Fair enough. I don't understand
_ignoring_ reports. That does not make it reasonable to ask for time and
effort to make one.
   But it doesn't stop the rant about bad bug reports I see here every now
and again. Oh well, I guess every group is schizophrenic, since people
don't agree easily.
   But the point is: I haven't made any in a long time, because I couldn't
get an answer to the currently desired procedure, and the purposelessness
of submitting something that may or may not be looked at. That doesn't mean
that I know of no bugs in the last snapshot I could compile (which is
several snapshots old now).
   This is me being stupid, though. I'm complaining because someone does
read GNATs. I just wonder if you're willing to make convenient to put
something into GNATs. Personally, I don't consider a 3270 terminal (AKA
Netscape) convenient.
   I liked the convenience of emailing to gcc-bugs. Can one still do that
and get into GNATs, without all the formatting done by gccbug (which won't
accept attachments that I can see)? Does gccbug work anyway, and one just
lives with the bounce?
   Ah, shut up, George.