GCC 3.0 Bugs: Call for Volunteers

[Joseph S. Myers]

On Mon, 12 Feb 2001, Mark Mitchell wrote:

>   - If it is not fixed, check to see whether or not it occurs with
>     GCC 2.95.2.
> 
>     If so, and the priority of the bug is presently "high" reset it to 
>     "medium".  Otherwise, do nothing.
> 
>   - Otherwise, the bug is not fixed, and represents a regression from
>     GCC 2.95.2.  How embarassing!
> 
>     In that case, mark the bug as having "high" priority.

Shouldn't bugs confirmed as genuine bugs that are still present be changed
from "open" to "analyzed" to record that they have been verified as
present in the compiler as of a given date?  This seems to be the practice
that has been followed (somewhat erratically) with the GCC GNATS database
in the past.

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
jsm28@cam.ac.uk