Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

[Andrew Pinski]

On Jun 16, 2005, at 1:26 PM, Roberto Bagnara wrote:

> First, I would like to clarify I do not consider it rude.
>
> But I do not consider it a good thing that, after this superficial 
> comment
> of yours, you did not even care to reply to my further arguments and 
> question.
> This is precisely the kind of behavior that frustrates me and, I guess,
> frustrates most other bug reporters.

This is not a superficial comment, my whole point with that comment
is that GCC does not __currently__ implement any other rounding mode
than the default one which is not what you want but hey it is what GCC
currently does.

> You said something incorrect ("Note neg just flips a bit so it is 
> correct
> anyways and there is no loss of precession"), then again you failed to 
> reply
> to an explicit question and to further arguments I added.  You also 
> failed
> to reply when I pointed out, in another comment, that this was indeed
> a regression from 3.3.  Then leaving the bug UNCONFIRMED for months...
> OK, you did not have time to check the standard... perhaps it is the
> word "bugmaster" that generates unreasonable expectations.

That is because I said someone else needs to look into it (a C "lawyer"
person who is on the standards committee).  Also again GCC
__currently__ implements one rounding mode and this is current for that
rounding mode.  And actually neg does just a flip a bit according to the
standard.  Now rounding modes are weird and should be implemented in GCC
but __currently__ they are not have not been since day one before there
was a C standard.


For the last one, the warning is correct, yes and is actually useful for
most people.

-- Pinski