https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116035
--- Comment #8 from Patrick O'Neill <patrick at rivosinc dot com> --- (In reply to Sam James from comment #7) > (In reply to Patrick O'Neill from comment #5) ... > > Typically I use [14/15 Regression] if I'm sure it's a regression (ex. the > > feature exists in prior versions and worked there). [14/15] is for cases > > like this where the isa extension wasn't implemented before so it's not > > technically a regression. > > How about [14/15 only] for those? > > > I like to err on the side of [14/15] if I'm not > > sure if it's a regression. > > If it's preferred I can remove the [14/15 <Regression>] from my titles and > > start exclusively using known to work/known to fail or just use known to > > work/fail in addition to the title. > > I don't want to make life difficult for you/your workflow, my only real > concern is people copying it and misunderstanding the notation and/or bugs > being mislabelled. > > Would the "only" compromise work for you? Sounds good to me. I'm happy to update my workflow to make it mesh better with bugzilla. If there's anything else you notice don't hesitate to comment on it or email me about it :)
