This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: GCC 3.4.4 Status (2005-04-29)
- From: Richard Guenther <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
- To: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 11:46:33 +0200
- Subject: Re: GCC 3.4.4 Status (2005-04-29)
- References: <200504291859.j3TIxUV6031121@sirius.codesourcery.com> <Pine.LNX.4.61.0504292132470.9310@digraph.polyomino.org.uk> <4272A985.2080707@codesourcery.com>
- Reply-to: Richard Guenther <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
On 4/29/05, Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com> wrote:
> Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> > What's the position on closing 3.4 regression bugs which are fixed in 4.0
> > and where it doesn't seem worthwhile to attempt to backport a fix?
>
> They should be closed as FIXED, with a note. It would be wrong to use
> WONTFIX, since the bug is in fact FIXED in 4.0; it might make sense to
> use WONTFIX if the bug was introduced on the 3.4 branch and never
> present elsewhere.
What about bugs like PR17860 which are not regressions to previous versions
but fixed in 4.0? In the audit trail there was the remark that closing as FIXED
is not ok. Though I would say closing as FIXED and using the target milestone
to indicate where it was fixed seems ok. WONTFIX would certainly be misleading
(though we won't fix it for the release the bug was reported against).
RIchard.