This is the mail archive of the
java@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the Java project.
Re: bug 18212 closed too early (by me) ?
- From: Ranjit Mathew <rmathew at gmail dot com>
- To: Bojan Antonovic <bojan at antonovic dot com>
- Cc: java at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2005 16:23:44 +0530
- Subject: Re: bug 18212 closed too early (by me) ?
- References: <422C9838.6040604@antonovic.com>
Bojan Antonovic wrote:
> Some months ago I reported bug 18212. In the recent days I discovered
> (after MANY hours of code stripping and testing) that it can be splitted
> to bugs 20351 and 20362. Because I thought that in the case when it
> produced the ICE that the reason is exactly like in 20362 (missing
> files), I marked it as a duplicate of 20362.
>
> Now the problem: Bug 18212 was correctly reported. There's no simple
> trick to avoid the ICE. It could be that bug 20362 is completly
> independet of bug 18212 even if produces the same output! Or fixing bug
> 20362 would fix bug 18212. Or many ways lead to ICE in GCJ ... (hoping
> for not!)
>
> The question: Should I reopen bug 18212, or wait until bug 20362 (and
> bug 20351) are fixed to retest it and to reopen if necessary? Or both
> (reopen and retest later) ?
As you can see from my comments in the latter two PRs, one
is fixed in the mainline by using the new verifier and the
other is something that I have not been able to reproduce.
However, I *have* been able to reproduce the same case
that Tom has been able to reproduce in PR18212.
So IMHO 18212 was closed a bit too early by you.
Thanks,
Ranjit.
--
Ranjit Mathew Email: rmathew AT gmail DOT com
Bangalore, INDIA. Web: http://ranjitmathew.hostingzero.com/