------- Comment #17 from mark at codesourcery dot com 2005-10-30 22:38 ------- Subject: Re: [3.4/4.0/4.1 regression] Minor compilation problem for cross to Solaris 8
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: > ------- Comment #16 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-30 22:36 > ------- > (In reply to comment #15) > >>Subject: Re: [3.4/4.0/4.1 regression] Minor compilation >> problem for cross to Solaris 8 >>What's this "4.1blocker-" stuff about? This certainly isn't a 4.1 >>blocker, and that information is already computable from the other >>fields, as I've described. > > > Flags are better as we can have a requestor and only one group of people able > to set the flag (you in this case). So if I requested this should be a > blocker, you can deny it without even being CC'd to the bug. It is a little > more automated than what fields do. This is why I asked about flags. Fields > to me should not be used in this way. I don't think I agree. Maybe I can be made to, but please drive this on the GCC list, and get buy-in, rather than doing it unilaterally. These fields are tools for the RM, and all you're doing at the moment is confusing me. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15082
