[FYI] bugzilla cleanup

[Richard Earnshaw]

On 16/09/2021 16:44, Martin Sebor via Gcc wrote:
> On 9/14/21 2:10 AM, Andrew Pinski via Gcc wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>    I am doing some bugzilla cleanup.  This includes disabling some
>> components and some versions for new bugs.
>> So far I have disabled versions before GCC 4 because we have not had a
>> report from someone for those versions in over 7 years.  I disabled
>> some versions which are about developmental branches which are
>> inactive too.
>> I also disabled the java, libgcj, fastjar, libmudflap, treelang and
>> libf2c components.
>>
>> I am in the process of moving away from having an inline-asm component
>> to an inline-asm keyword instead; this was suggested on IRC and I
>> agree.  After the current open bugs have moved away from the
>> inline-asm component, I will disable it also.
>>
>> If anyone else has any other suggestions that should be done, please
>> let me know and I will look into doing it.
> 
> Re: Keywords: I find it useful to differentiate between two kinds of
> diagnostic bugs: false positives and false negatives (the latter for
> existing warnings that don't trigger when intended, as opposed to
> requests to enhance existing warnings or add new ones). I've been
> using Personal Tags for this but it might be useful to others as
> well.  If you agree and add the corresponding new keywords
> (false-positive and false-negative) I'll set them based on my Tags.
> 
> One other suggestion: every once in a while someone asks if
> ice-on-invalid-code bugs apply to syntactically well-formed code that
> has undefined behavior (I don't believe it does).  It would help to
> clarify the Description for this Keyword (and, correspondingly, for
> ice-on-valid).  E.g., something like
> 
> ice-on-invalid-code: ICE on code that is not syntactically valid.
> ice-on-valid-code: ICE on code that is syntactically valid.
> 

What about syntactically valid but semantically invalid code?  I'd call 
that ICE-on-invalid as well.

R.

> Martin