Re: release critical gcc bugs
Christian Kurz writes:
> On 99-11-07 Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > Marking every g++ failure as release-critical is not OK, simply because
> > the bugs have workarounds and are very, very difficult to fix. If you
>
> I never talked about marking every bug against g+= as RCB, but I would
> say that in internal compiler error is an RCB-bug.
ICE's are not so critical. You see that something is going wrong and
can workaround or not. Worse are these bugs which generate wrong code
...
> > meanwhile, there is nothing to be done. We forward the bugs to the
> > upstream authors, and we do what we can to figure out the problem, but
> > in a piece of software as complex as gcc it can take a long time to
> > uncover the bugs.
>
> I never said, that this behaviour is bad or that I dislike it, but such
> thinkg please be documented a bit more in the BTS?
that becomes difficult without any feedback from the maintainers of
these packages or the people who compile them on alpha. The gcc
maintainers currently lack someone very familiar with the C++ part of
gcc ... so if somebody listens and would comment the open bugs of g++
and libstdc++*, please do!
"a bit more documented"? It's a time problem. What I would like to do
is to reassign these incomplete bug reports to a "debian-alpha"
package and waiting for the back assignment with the completed
information.
Reply to: