On Thursday, May 30, 2013 09:34:06 AM Paul Tagliamonte wrote: > On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 06:36:32AM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote: > > In that case, I'd say they aren't bugs at all. It may be that a FTBFS > > with > > clang is a symptom of some underlying issue that should be addressed, but > > I > > don't think non-wishlist bugs should be filed ONLY on the basis of that > > FTBFS. All that does is impose a burden on package maintainers to > > determine if the FTBFS is a real issue or not. I don't think that's > > appropriate for a MBF. > It's not like clang has non-standard ideas regarding the spec, often > times these errors are more strict readings of the spec, and relying on > gcc's quirks isn't a great idea. > > If code can be fixed, it'd a good idea, since gcc may (and has, in the > past), changed non-standard behavior to be more correct. > > > minor severity sounds good to me :) For the ones that are actual errors, I agree. I don't think that FTBFS with clang is sufficient on it's own to determine that an error exists. Someone would need to look at the failure and see if it's really a bug before filing non-wishlist bugs. Scott K
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.