gccbug reports?

[Daniel Berlin]

On Jun 14, 2004, at 10:43 PM, Steve Kargl wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 15, 2004 at 04:40:24AM +0200, Giovanni Bajo wrote:
>> Steve Kargl wrote:
>>
>>> The "Category" for 2 of the missing reports was "fortran" and the
>>> 3rd report's "Category" was "optimization".
>>
>> I forgot to update gccbug when splitting optimization into
>> rtl-optimization/tree-optimization in Bugzilla. Fixed thus, committed 
>> to trunk,
>> 3.4 and 3.3 as rubber-stamped by Zack.
>>
>> Giovanni Bajo
>>
>
> Please see the PR that started this thread.  From the info
> there, tell me how to choose between rtl- and tree-?
>


How do they know it's an optimization problem in the first place?
Just because your case works at -O1 and fails at -O2 (or works at -O0 
and fails at -O1), doesn't mean the problem lies in one of the 
optimizers.
How would they know it's a "middle-end" problem, for example?
The categories are *not* for users to really know about.
The only reason to even allow it to be user settable in the initial bug 
report is for bugs that *are* obviously in one category or another, or 
for users that know.
Those that don't, usually just choose "other".
The web interface also has a description of each category if you click 
on the word "components" next to the drop down list of components.
There are few users who use the email interface (though they seem to 
consistently do so), which has no descriptions of the components there.

--Dan