[Bug other/15082] [3.4/4.0/4.1 regression] Minor compilation problem for cross to Solaris 8

["mark at codesourcery dot com" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>]

------- Comment #17 from mark at codesourcery dot com  2005-10-30 22:38 -------
Subject: Re:  [3.4/4.0/4.1 regression] Minor compilation
 problem for cross to Solaris 8

pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> ------- Comment #16 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-10-30 22:36 -------
> (In reply to comment #15)
> 
>>Subject: Re:  [3.4/4.0/4.1 regression] Minor compilation
>> problem for cross to Solaris 8
>>What's this "4.1blocker-" stuff about?  This certainly isn't a 4.1
>>blocker, and that information is already computable from the other
>>fields, as I've described.
> 
> 
> Flags are better as we can have a requestor and only one group of people able
> to set the flag (you in this case).  So if I requested this should be a
> blocker, you can deny it without even being CC'd to the bug.  It is a little
> more automated than what fields do.  This is why I asked about flags.  Fields
> to me should not be used in this way.

I don't think I agree.  Maybe I can be made to, but please drive this on
the GCC list, and get buy-in, rather than doing it unilaterally.  These
fields are tools for the RM, and all you're doing at the moment is
confusing me.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15082