Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | On 2005-06-19 13:16:33 +0200, Steven Bosscher wrote: | > What exactly do you want to _achieve_ with this thread? Please, do tell, | > because you've completely lost most of us by now, I'm sure. | | Just that the problem should be considered as a bug, and not a bug | in the users' code (for some of them), nor a bug in x86 (a bad design | if you want). | | > I have re-closed PR323 now as SUSPENDED instead of INVALID because I find | | Thank you very much. Note that you're "re-closed" is incorrect because | a SUSPENDED bug is still open (but suspended); look at bugzilla's | documentation... This is important for the above reasons and also | because users will be able to see this bug when searching on bugzilla | (let's hope that this will reduce future duplicates).
Vincent -- You can make a difference by helping yourself, creating a bugzilla account, adding comments and modifying PR status based on informed facts. [...] | There's no contradiction. The bug shouldn't be marked as INVALID, | and there shouldn't be patches as long as it is marked as INVALID. | That's what I meant. Is that a GCC development policy or a new rule you would like people to adopt? -- Gaby