This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Assigning priorities to GNATS reports
- From: Joe Buck <jbuck at synopsys dot com>
- To: mark at codesourcery dot com (Mark Mitchell)
- Cc: reichelt at igpm dot rwth-aachen dot de (Volker Reichelt), bangerth at ticam dot utexas dot edu (bangerth at ticam dot utexas dot edu), gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org (gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org)
- Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 12:26:58 -0800 (PST)
- Subject: Re: Assigning priorities to GNATS reports
> > Do I rate it as a "2.95.3 regression" (since it's a regression from
> > 2.95.3) or "3.0 regression" since the bug appeared in the 3.0-branch
> > or even "3.2 regression" since previous branches aren't maintained any
> > more?
> >
> > Any suggestions?
>
> Call it a "[3.2 regression]"; i.e., use the oldest release that we are
> still maintaining.
It seems that there are two pieces of information we are interested in:
the last gcc version where the test worked correctly, and the version
or versions where it does not work. A regression that worked in 2.95.x,
but that fails in all 3.x releases, is less severe than, say, a case
that worked in 3.2 and fails in 3.2.1. The reason is that the question
for the user is whether it's worthwhile to replace the old version with
the new version; a compiler that is better than all recent versions, but
that has not yet fixed every issue introduced after 3.0, is worth
installing, but a compiler that has regressions against the previous point
release probably should not be shipped at all.