https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86306
--- Comment #10 from graham.stott at btinternet dot com --- very poor bug reports they waste time for people they don't have -------- Original message -------- From: "zhonghao at pku dot org.cn" <gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org> Date: 25/06/2018 12:37 (GMT+00:00) To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c++/86306] Initializing atomic qualified type with another atomic qualified type leads to assertion failure https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86306 --- Comment #9 from zhonghao at pku dot org.cn --- (In reply to zhonghao from comment #8) > (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #7) > > (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #6) > > > Because you are just blindly copying things from one bugzilla to the > > > other, > > > without making any effort to check if what you are reporting is sensible. > > > > For example, in Bug 86305 you said that g++ segfaults on the code. That's > > complete nonsense. You just took the title of the clang bug and changed > > "clang" to "g++" even though g++ does not segfault on the code. > > > > Do you really think that is helpful? > > As I said, I posted the original bug reports, hoping that they can provide > insights on why the recent gcc and clang handle the same piece of code > differently. Sometimes, I reuse the titles of the original bug reports, so I > can keep the links between them easier. If the titles are confusing, I will > try to use more informative titles. However, do the differences themselves > often reveal bugs? Furthermore, those code samples are not randomly > generated, and they come from your real users! They are not invented by me, > and they are real code! Your potential users report those code samples to your competitors, so your competitors can provide compilers of higher quality. I “steal” those code samples to you. I thought that you must appreciate me, but you threaten to ban me, intead. :(
