Re: GDB `cannotfix' pr state, require PR with xfail `moving forward'.

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>]

On Fri, Jan 17, 2003 at 02:26:20PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> With revisions:
> 
> >There is currently a long thread (Remove all setup_xfail...)'s on 
> >gdb-patches@.  Several proposals, I think, can already be identified at 
> >this point in the discussion.
> >
> >- yank the existing xfail PR markings (but not the actual xfails) (they 
> >apply to old internal Red Hat and HP bug databases and hence are 
> >meaningless).
> 
> Still stands.
> 
> >- `moving forward' all new xfails, and all modifications to existing 
> >xfail's should include a bug report  (this way, new analyzed vs old 
> >unanalized xfail's can easily be differentiated).
> 
> Still stands.
> 
> >- GDB have a new closed state `cannotfix'; or a new class `xfail' or 
> >`notabug' or ...; or even reuse the class `mistaken' that can be used to 
> >categorize xfail bug reports (not sure which is better here).
> 
> GDB has a new category `external'.  External bugs can either be 
> `suspended' (I guess that implies that the bug is waiting on the 
> external code to be fixed), or `closed' the external problem has been fixed.

Would an external defect relating to GCC 2.95.3, fixed in 3.2, be
marked "closed"?  This would be the one legitimate case for a failure
to refer to a closed bug report?  That seems reasonable at first blush.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer