------- Additional Comments From igodard at pacbell dot net 2005-08-08 02:42 ------- See also #23281
Should this and other reports about diagnostic quality be treated as "enhancement requests"? I suppose tht it depends on what you consider "correctness". If that means "conforming to standard", then any diagnostic will do, including "something wrong found somewhere in program". Personally I use a different standard of "correct", which includes "usable", and so addresses issues like compilation time measured in days as well as quality of diagnostic. I understand that the gcc implementation community has a notion of "QOI" (quality of implementation) which reflects much of what I call "usable". But I would distinguish a "defect of QOI" from an "enhancement request"; the latter being something nice to have, but the former impacting real usage. I put this particular DR in the "defect of QOI" category. Even if you do not, you probably can select a non-empty set of DRs that are truly "defects" and not mere "enhancement requests. Consequently I'm filing this as a DR against the gcc DR reporting machinery itself, rather than against the compiler in particular. There needs to be categories for QOI defects of varying severity; either that, or complaints about diagnostics and other QOI ussues should not by policy be filed as "enhancement requests", and forgotten. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23263
