Bug Digest 5/11
Mon May 12 12:14:00 GMT 2003
Steven Bosscher <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> 6680 (problem has changed, and I asked the submitter to open a new
>> report for the new problem, can someone confirm if this is the correct
>> way to do things?)
> Don't know so didn't touch.
It's the correct way, but Dara, can you please send a mail to the audit
trail explaining the situation? This way, we can close it with a proper
reason being logged.
> All of these _are_ open AFAICT. Did you mean "analyzed"? Most of these
> are just "confirmed" so I'll leave them for now. I'm sure Volkert and
> Wolfgang read this, let's see what they think.
I took care of them. Some could be switched to analyzed, the others are:
This still needs analysys
Need minimal testcase.
More information about the Gcc-bugs