This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: 3.4 regressions: are 2.95 regressions still actual
On Jan 25, 2004, at 4:35 PM, Zack Weinberg wrote:
Erik Schnetter <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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
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.
Well, i'm about to (in a few moments) roll known to work/known to fail.