This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: 3.4 regressions: are 2.95 regressions still actual
Erik Schnetter <schnetter@uni-tuebingen.de> writes:
> I assume that bugzilla is supposed to reflect the state of the head
> branch. Bugs reported for releases are only of interest if they can be
> confirmed in the head (or are regressions). That might be a good
> policy for developing gcc, but it is not obvious at all from a user's
> perspective. I like the idea of getting some appreciation in the form
> of remembering my report until there is a version of gcc released that
> has the bug fixed.
This, IIRC, is what the RESOLVED/VERIFIED/CLOSED distinction in
bugzilla is supposed to handle; like an awful lot of bugzilla's
features, we are not using it, and I'm not sure why.
zw