This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [v3] PR 10975
- From: Benjamin Kosnik <bkoz at redhat dot com>
- To: Paolo Carlini <pcarlini at unitus dot it>
- Cc: jlquinn at optonline dot net, libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org, ncm at cantrip dot org, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 21:17:07 -0600
- Subject: Re: [v3] PR 10975
- Organization: Red Hat / Chicago
- References: <E1Adh27-0000EF-00@smaug><3FFAB7D2.6000504@unitus.it>
>Hi Jerry. The patch itself it's safe but I'm not sure we really want
>to apply it now, without the corresponding DR.
I agree. I think we all agree that this is the correct behavior, and
that this patch should go in at some point. The problem is that this
sane behavior contradicts the standard at the moment.
So, there needs to be a DR filed first. I'd be willing to bend the
rules on this one (ie new/open, not ready).
>In fact, this situation
>happens again and again:
>
>1- We are unsure about the correct interpretation of something.
>2- Nathan says: hey, the following is obviously ;) what we(I) wanted: ...
>3- Someone replies: the actual standard says something different/ambiguous!
>4- Nathan says: you are right: Defect, immediately! (CC: Martin)
>5- Martin works on the Defect Report
>6- Sometimes in the future, thanks to Martin, the Defect appears
LOL. Sooooo true!
>So, what we want to do, as a general policy?
Well, we shouldn't make Martin do all the work (I'm sure he'd approve of
this as well!). It's been suggested that we write our own defect
reports, something that I think would be a good idea.
Of course, I'm not so great at that either. But, I could certainly learn
to do a better job.
-benjamin