https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103506
--- Comment #12 from Thomas Koenig <tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to anlauf from comment #11) > (In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #8) > > Doing the search in bugzilla, 137 bugs are marked as ic-on-invalid-code. I > > suggest we make all of these P5 or Wont fix. > > Please don't make them wont-fix. I concur. While it is annoying to have that many bugs, everybody has their own priorities, and if somebody wants to spend their time fixing them, there is no reason not to, and certainly no reason to remove them from the search (which is what marking them as wont-fix would do). > An ICE is always a bug, as we used to explain everybody who asked, > and I still consider it that way. Agreed. > If you must, make them P5, but didn't we have P5 for enhancements, > or (missing/wrong) diagnostics? Not sure about that. I hardly look at priorites, anyway, except for the really high ones. > Also, an ICE-on-invalid input that confuses the parser points at a > different part of the compiler than an ICE that happens during resolution, > simplification, frontend-optimization, translation. > > In several cases, an ICE in one of the trans*.cc was caused by an issue > much earlier in the process. > > One problem is that there are lots of PRs that are - either seemingly or > likely - related. A good (better?) classification of bugs to find those > that might be connected or near-duplicates would be helpful. > > I once tried to edit the summary of some bugs that were e.g. coarray-related, > or OOP; not sure if that was appreciated. We have some meta-bugs for coarray-related stuff. Coarry-related bugs can be set as blocking Coarray (aka PR83700). > (We could more aggressively mark PRs as F2018 or F2023.) There is the F2018 meta-bug, aka 85836, and I have just created F2023, aka PR108577. This is probably the best way to track these PRs - just mark them as blocking the relevant standard PR. People who are interested in following those can just put themselves on the CC list. > Also, there are several bugs pertaining only to CLASS. Some of those > would be addressed along with the fix for PR106856. Tobias' patch plus > some minor fixup to it seems to solve many of them. I don't think we have a class meta-bug, but I'm not sure.
