This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Killing old dead bugs
- From: Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>
- To: Yuri Gribov <tetra2005 at gmail dot com>, GCC Development <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2017 09:19:09 -0600
- Subject: Re: Killing old dead bugs
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- Authentication-results: ext-mx09.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com
- Authentication-results: ext-mx09.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=law at redhat dot com
- Dkim-filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mx1.redhat.com 36C11E1F15
- Dmarc-filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mx1.redhat.com 36C11E1F15
- References: <CAJOtW+6u3FxTRfyqJf3NAit9OsghzPFj0iYrDd1nrh9XvXg8Dg@mail.gmail.com>
On 07/02/2017 11:08 AM, Yuri Gribov wrote:
> Hi all,
> What do I need to do to close an old bug which does not repro with
> modern GCC and reporter does not care anymore (e.g.
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40528)? Also, is there
> some general policy about closing old bugs?
Ideally you'd bisect the tree to figure out what change causes the bug
not to reproduce anymore -- that way you can make an educated guess
whether or not the bug was fixed or just went latent.
Sometimes that can be skipped with sufficient knowledge of the bug.
The fact that the reporter doesn't care anymore is useful, but what's
far more important is whether or not the bug is likely someone else
would run into.
>From reviewing the BZ, the core request is for ifunc capabilities to be
exposed as an attribute. THat's been around for a long time. I think
the core issue was Agner had a much too old binutils (2.20-ish).