c++/8931: g++ 3.2 fails to enforce access rules

[Wolfgang Bangerth]

The following reply was made to PR c++/8931; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Wolfgang Bangerth <bangerth@ticam.utexas.edu>
To: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@integrable-solutions.net>
Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, <gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>, <sebor@roguewave.com>,
   <gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: c++/8931: g++ 3.2 fails to enforce access rules
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 15:17:17 -0600 (CST)

 > | Synopsis: g++ 3.2 fails to enforce access rules
 > | State-Changed-From-To: open->closed
 > |     Since it is not a regression, it is not going to be fixed
 > |     in any 3.2.* and there is no value in keeping this report
 > |     open.
 > 
 > It would be really helpful if non-invasive bug fixes could make it to
 > branch when it is not frozen.
 > 
 > Setting the bar to only regression fixes is, IMHO, too high and
 > renders the dot releases less useful and less attractive.  Indeed,
 > I've seen lot of PRs being closed on the basis that they are fixed on
 > mainline and since they are not regressions they won't be fixed in
 > 3.2.x.  The net effect is that people would have to wait for some (long)
 > undeterminated time before they had a compiler that fixes the bugs,
 > and meanwhile we will be releasing compilers that could include
 > those patches.  
 
 I think I even concur, I am just executing the policies that have been 
 set. However, in the discussion I would like some points to be kept in 
 mind:
 - if there are too many open reports in the database, it is difficult to
   manage and very annoying when one re-visits reports that are "half-open" 
   every so often. You do realize that we presently have about 1800 (!)
   non-closed reports and that it is easy to lose yourself into this 
   amount, right?
 - given the really *large* number of open bug reports, I think the scarce
   bug fixing resources gcc has serve the community better in the long term
   if we let them focus on 3.3, rather than spending time backporting 
   fixes. This way we might get 3.3 out earlier, which will certainly be 
   better than any 3.2.2.
 - if we allow other patches into the branch, it needs more testing; the 
   thing with limited resources applies here as well.
 - someone will have to find the patch that fixed it on the mainline.
 
 For this particular case I don't know how invasive the fix might be, so I 
 can't comment on its impact on stability of the branch. 
 
 W.
 
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Wolfgang Bangerth              email:           bangerth@ticam.utexas.edu
                                www: http://www.ticam.utexas.edu/~bangerth